Skip to comments.BERG v. OBAMA: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case
Posted on 11/12/2009 10:51:25 AM PST by Sibre Fan
* * *
In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). [W]hen the asserted harm is a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).
* * *
Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiffs claims, and they must be dismissed.6 Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.
Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Courts order dismissing Bergs action.
“The decision was unanimous, which means that the “Republican” judge agreed with the ruling.”
You think that means anything these days? I’m finding it hard to name more than a handful of people in the GOP who support the constitution any more.
This so called “conservative” party will not be getting my vote until they get their act together and realise that even Zero has to obey the constitution.
I think I understand the reasoning (I guess) but it still doesn't seem right on some level.
If an unconstitutional act affects everyone, not just one plaintiff who is harmed in a unique way, the Supreme Court has held (in the case the 3rd Circuit's opinion cites) that no one has standing to raise the issue in court, because, if everyone is harmed, they can seek redress from the elected branches of government. So the court is saying that if Obama is ineligible, the Congress can impeach him or the people can vote him out of office in 2012, but the courts can't get involved.
We’re screwed because our politicians are all in cahoots with each other regarding Obama’s BC, both the dems and pubs.
Do you really believe that the FBI, CIA and other security agencies do not exactly know where Obama’s skeletons are hidden? They know yours and mine. Obama’s background and that of every other person is minutely scrutinized the moment that they decide to run for political office in Chicago or anywhere.
Do you believe that Bush, Cheney, McCain and even Palin did not know who Obama really was the moment he ran for the Senate? Don’t you find it strange that all of them are silent on this matter or don’t even want to know?
The previous administrations have had plenty of time to investigate Obama’s background or that of any other politician.
You want a truthful answer? Don’t ask the governor of Hawaii, ask Putin.
Silverleaf (post #7) is right, but no one has the testosterone level to do anything about it.
Fundamentally, only an honest people of good will can government themselves. No amount of laws or clauses can corral evil. Our Constitution could be legally airtight, and the length of the IRS, but evil people **will** always find a way to scam the system. We now live in a nation where evil is overwhelming the good.
By the way, the 2000 Florida recount was the turning point for me. I realized that the Democrats were Marxists and would do **anything** ( literally) to obtain and hold power. From that point on, I will not have a Marxist ( AKA Democrat) for a friend. They are too evil and/or too stupid.
This whole ‘standing’ notion is really beginning to chafe a whole lot of folks. It does nothing to clarify the issue at hand, and has been spread broadly and thinly enough to cover, probably, ANY person bringing a suit challenging the anointed one’s eligibility.
It seems to me, common folk that I am, that:
1. ANY registered voter should have standing to challenge the eligibility of any elected official with direct representation; President, VP, Senator (of the state of residence), Representative (of the District of residence), any State elected official (under the same terms). The notion of particularized injury is bunk, IMO, when dealing with direct Constitutional challenges.
2. ALL State and Local Boards of Elections should be required to vet the eligibility of all candidates seeking to add their names to a ballot.
So, what’s the best way to go in the Federal courts? Quo Warranto in DC? Where is Donofrio?
You have an amazingly one track mind. How is Eric doing today?
I guess we're all just a bunch of dumb schlubs. I guess since Barry was elected, it doesn't matter if he was eligible or not.
Think of the usurpation by Barry as a football analogy:
Say you're playing defense in a Super Bowl where it's 4th quarter, you're leading by 5 points and on a 3rd down play the other team's offensive line belts you while you are out of bounds -- an obvious unnecessary roughness play. No whistle blows because the referees are distracted, except for the one ref at the far end of the field. He saw it, but his whistle isn't working. But he's running toward you screaming - and nobody pays attention.
Since the other team's QB is running a "hurry up offense" they get their next play off and score a touchdown to win the game with no time left on the clock. Just then the ref that ran from the far end of the field finally gets his whistle to work, blows it and charges the other team with an "unnecessary roughness" penalty from the previous play.
WELL TOO BAD FOR YOU! Since the other team got their play off before the whistle blew, they just beat you and there's nothing you can do about it. Sorry, better luck next time!
Repeated appeals to the commissioner fall on deaf ears, and they keep ruling that you "have no standing".
This is how I feel about the election of November 4th, 2008. America lost too!
We're in an airtight room, with 12 hours of air left, up to our ankles in gasoline, the Democrats are in the corner throwing lit matches at us and each other, and your suggestion is to wait 3 years for the cavalry to show up and take their matches away.
There's a fine line between patience and denial-flavored fatal gullibility.
Let the revolution, or the insurrection begin!
So what would be your answer if there were no questions about Obama’s eligibility?
You do have means of redress. Impeachment.
"The essence of Berg's complaint is that the defendents, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress - a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama's eligibility through various means - have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one "appropriately resolved through the judicial process."
Is this the case that has Berg’s evidence under wraps because of a court order?
Apuzzo just wrote a blistering put-down of D’Onofrio’s quo warranto interpretation and not being a lawyer I won't comment, but just watch and see if either one of them prevails.
My best hope at the moment is that folks on the far left who were lied to by Obama (wildly false expectations encouraged by Obama) on a whole host of issues will start to become interested in bringing his down and become interested in Obama’s BC!
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and I am expecting a whole lot of new “friends” from the far left soon all trying to find evidence that Obama lied about his eligibility. At the very least, they will stop protecting him and that may be enough to get to a tipping point.
It is my understanding that There is evidence that Berg has that is still sealed by a court’s decision.
I was wondering if it was this case.
That analogy doesn’t work because the game wouldn’t be over. The NFL is stricter about enforcing rules on field than the US government is in obeying the constitution.
Impeachment is our remedy and I know that’s not going to fly, hence my suggestion of getting a huge sum of money, promising Pelosi the oval office and keep throwing stacks of hundreds on her desk until her price is met.
Pelosi is evil, but she couldn’t be as destructive in the White House as Obama has been.
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.