Replies

Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?

I can try. The Third Circuit held:

A. A voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate because, among other reasons, the voter can always support a candidate he believed was eligible. Moreover, even if placement of an ineligible candidate harmed the individual voter, that injury is too general to meet Article III requirements, because it would similarly harm all voters.

B. A voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a sitting president because any alleged injury is shared by the entire country (including nonvoters)

C. The 10th Amendment is irrelevant to standing issues -- that is, the 10th Amendment does not create an individual right to sue to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate (or sitting President).

D. A voter does not have standing to sue the President of the Senate (i.e., Dick Cheney) for any alleged failure to call for objections during counting of the Electoral College vote, because that voter did not suffer particularlized injury. (Stated another way, just as an individual voter has no specific "injury" re: an "ineligible candidate" - the voter's injury caused by the alleged failure to call for objections is shared by all voters.)

E. A voter's First Amendment rights are not infringed when his political representative fails to do as he asks (i.e., here, to object to the electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor). The Court called this argument frivolous.

F. The District Court did not violate Berg's due process rights by dismissing the case. (Again, the court called this argument frivolous.)

-----------
The court marked the case "precedential" - which means that it is binding on the Third Circuit (and all courts in that circuit - i.e., all federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands).

This means that Kerchner's appeal, which is also in the Third District, is not likely to succeed. As to the three "citizen/voter" plaintiffs in Kerchner, this holding directly impacts their case - the Court has held that plaintiffs in their position have no standing.

Kerchner's status -- as a retired military officer, and not just as a voter -- is somewhat different, but, as his status is shared by tens of thousands of other retired military officers, it is not likely that the Court will find that he has standing either, given their ruling in this case.

Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?

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.