The Georgia ruling in Farrar, Powell, Swenson, and Welden came after a trial on the merits that was requested by the plaintiffs. The Georgia Judge was ready to issue a summary judgement because Obama’s attorney refused to show up for the trial but the plaintiffs requested a trial on the merits and they were granted that. They lost and then appealed to the Georgia Superior Court. They lost there as well and appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, they also lost there and finally the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to grant cert and hear the case.
Many of the eligibility lawsuits against Obama were dismissed for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. The people who had standing to sue because they suffered direct injury from Obama’s election were the other candidates who received Electoral votes and had an opportunity to be elected: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan or the Republican National Committee on their behalf. None of those person or that entity filed suit.
To have standing you must be able to demonstrate DIRECT injury not indirect.
Hi there. Thanks for your note. Here’s the last note on this I can do today.....I hope I say something helpful for you?
Yes, the Georgia courts hardly distinguished themselves (the nicest possible way of putting the point), nor did they resolve the issues at bar.
Perhaps that was not the best imaginable case for the USSCt to maybe take up, I suspect it wasn’t....but it nevertheless seemed a shame the USSCt did not find a case that dealt intelligently with the issues and... take that one up. After all, it will take a new USSCt decision to overturn the previous and apparently controlling language, or to provide a new, modern definition perhaps (if you believe the SCt should do that). Some holding by a local ALJ or even a state court somewhere ... can do little to resolve a US Constitutional matter (particularly when it appears that the ALJ gentleman ruled against the evidence before him? There was quite a lot of concern about that at the time...).
Also, the record was not benefited by courts turning down so many cases for “standing” or as “frivilous” or as a “waste of the court’s time” -—
“Standing’ has its value (to insure that plaintiffs have sufficient incentive to present vigorous and competent litigation), but it can also provide an immense skirt for a reticent court to hide behind, as we all have come to realize.
Nor was it particularly benefited by one or more of the plaintiffs or one plaintiffs’ attorney (who seemed prone to somewhat odd statements at times).
We are therefore left with little or nothing of recent date worth much weight. We thus return, as we always must, to the US Constitution. We immediately note its provision setting up a different or higher standard for the office of the presidency than for any other purpose in our country, a standard driven by the well-known concerns of our Founders that somebody with allegiance to a foreign power, Great Britain in particular as it happened, could someday (after the Founders’ generation) acquire the office. The law of nations at the time (and some of the documents relating to the Founding fathers) illustrate that two citizen parents, plus birth in the USA, were what was envisioned for this higher standard...that being their best effort at insuring the loyalty of future presidents. And, the USSCt has referred to this (including its two parents aspect). I am aware of no USSCt decision since that overruled this or provided a different definition of NBC. (There have been many citizenship-related decisions, but none can recall addressing the NBC standard since the early language citing two USA citizen parents etc.)
Daddy having been a British citizen (via Kenya colony), it is impossible to see how sonny boy could possibly qualify for the office on this basis.
(Note also that we also have been quite deliberately, and I would have to note amazingly, denied nearly all of the simple documentation or evidence needed to ascertain even his basic citizenship status and of what countries that may pertain (Indonesia? UK? Kenya? USA? Romulus?). ALL this difficulty could have been avoided had there not been such a concerted and comprehensive concealment of every conceivable pertinent document, record, witness, or scrap of evidence .....
History may someday clear all this up, one way or another. It often does; the facts have a way of surfacing one way or another.
I am open to correction but also regret that I have no more time for the internet this weekend. So maybe someone else, possibly with more light to share with us all, can please pick this discussion up right now and move us forward? Thanks!
Over and out, and thanks for the notes. Much appreciated!!!