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.
Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?
Sounds to me that the Court is dissembling. If what they state is in fact true, and Obama was not even a NATURALIZED citizen, or, for that matter, UNDER the age of 35, as required by the Constitution, his lack of qualifications for office would be irrelevant.
No controversy Ping
Even a powerful Clinton/Hillary lawyer can’t get passed go on this B.C. issu!
So, we’re screwed.
apparently it is no one’s Constitutional right to have a Constitutionally qualified President. Since generally the denial of one’s Constitutional rights is considered an injury.
But what do I know
Can you just imagine how much dirt the Chicago mob machine has on Hillary and Bill?
Hillary wouldn't dare go after this, imo
FVCK YOV, Citizen.
“Standing” was created very soon after America was formed and it was basically a way for a court to throw something out that they know they have no power to enforce.
Yet another bought-off/threatened/treasonous/cowardly/Democrat judge proves the American court system is hopelessly corrupt, and an orderly, peaceful means of change within the current system is no longer an option.
I imagine the decision of the appeals court in Orly’s Keyes v Obama case will read pretty much the same.
Damn. They're everywhere. </sarcasm>
Does this mean (IANAL) that we have no means of redress at all if an ineligible POTUS slips through the system?
Does the fact that a lot of people were injured negate the fact that I as an individual was still injured and that I still have rights?
The list, ping
“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.
Ordinary citizens, and most not so ordinary ones, have no standing to have the courts enforce the Constitution. Unless they suffer "injury" different from that of all other citizens.
If no one can eforce it, the Constitution is dead. It'll be deader yet when the Senate passes some kind of health care reform and then the "offending" provisions of the House bill are put back in in conferance, and then passed in the Senate by 51 votes or 50 votes plus Biden's tie breaker.
Assuming there is an honest election in 2012. After all if no one can sue to enforce Article I section 1 clause 5, why would they be able to sue to enforce the preceeding four clauses and the XIIth, XXth and XXIInd amendments? Particularly first clause of the XXth amendment.
No particularized "injury" would occur if those Constitutional provisions were violated, would they?
She and Dingy Harry are Barry's partners in that destruction.
It’s probably checkmate....Both have each other by the balls so the speak. Hillary or Bill would not used that option of exposing Obama, unless he became the aggressor and showed signs of going to expose her. I think the Clintons are waiting for Obama to hang himself so the speak. They certainly would not come to his aid if there was evidence of him imploding. They no doubt would step aside,get out of the way and hope that they would not be caught up in it.
Impeachment is our remedy and I know thats 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 couldnt be as destructive in the White House as Obama has been.
Ping to a ruling on Berg v. Obama.
ANYONE HAS STANDING or as they put it back then, subject matter jurisdiction.
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 Houses 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 Courts 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 Constitutions 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 assume you meant to ask "What would your question be if there were no questions about Obama's eligibility?"
If he hadn't written, or rather Bill Ayers hadn't written in his autobiography that Barack Sr. was a British citizen, therefore Barry Jr simply can't be a natural born US citizen, my question would be the following:
Why have you sealed all of your educational records, and who paid your university tuition?
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.