Skip to comments.Eligibility case finds 'standing'?
Posted on 12/31/2008 2:20:29 AM PST by Man50D
A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."
In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury .
In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.
"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.
"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign up now!
Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
One thing is clear. We need to be all over our legislators to enact laws that require an open and honest standard of vetting these candidates.
IMO, we'll get that sometime after we find out who hired Craig Livingstone. Our legislators, both R and D, have no interest whatever in following the Constitution if there is any hint it would upset their cozy club.
There is a reason these vermin are called POLITICIANS!
Quite literally Obama will have one or more lawsuits every week he is in office.
He will go down in history as the only president to have subpoenas served daily.
And the longer he stays in office the more people he will bring down thus weakening America even further and opening chinks for our enemies to dig into.
The only part of the Constitution they like following is the 16th amendment.
Rumor says that O’s parents divorce papers state that O was born in Kenya, to be released TODAY.
this has also created a good future litmus test for fed. appointees,,determine how he would have decided on 0’b, then reject him as an admitted felon if he gives the wrong answer, assuming 0’b is rejected by the Supremes.
If the divorce papers DO show his, it would be supreme irony. Remember, it was the divorce papers of another that allowed 0 to gain his Senate seat. However, I am not gonna hold my breath.
I heard the same thing and we will soon confirm that the BO is an imposter. Of course I cannot revel my sources because they were very high BO campaign officials.
How dare ordinary citizens challenge the privilege of their masters?
The Rats in Olympia will take care of that pesky statute PDQ.
Released from where and by who? Do you have a link?
'At NO TIME did he produce'... enough said. Such a simple request for Barack to fulfill the requirement. It's too bad so many have drank the Fool Aid. It is pitiful.
Could you be more specific in how "high" they were?
After Obama is inaugurated, any individual uniquely and adversely affected by one of his official actions as President would have standing to challenge his eligibility to be President. E.g., a bureaucrat or political employee fired by Obama. (Same with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whose appointment and confirmation might violate the Emoluments Clause; see Eugene Volokh’s exploration of this issue, here: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml)
That being said, any federal judge hearing the case would:
1) Find no standing anyway, even if such a conclusion is contrary to law, or
2) Find another technical ground to dismiss the case.
There’s just no way a federal judge is going to buck the political will of the American people, which is to have Obama as President. The matter should not be deemed what is called a Political Question in constitutional law (something committed to the political branches, which the courts cannot touch) because it involves an explicit textual command of the Constitution (just as, e.g., whether the person elected President is qualified to serve when he might not be 35 years old is not a Political Question.)
But, as a practical matter, it is a Political Question - because federal judges will simply refuse to touch the issue of whether Obama is eligible to be President. I’d bet the house on it (if I had a house.) However, the Hillary Clinton matter is closer call. It might happen that a case challenging Clinton’s eligibility to serve as Secretary of State would progress to the merits.
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.