Posted on 02/12/2009 10:19:49 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
That is why judges toss out certain cases -- because the plaintiffs weren't able to show they suffered concrete harm. That was the circumstance when an Internet-fueled rumor sparked several lawsuits seeking to bar Honolulu-born Barack Obama from the presidency because the plaintiffs doubted he was, as the Constitution requires, "a natural-born citizen."
In dismissing one such suit, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, of federal district court in Philadelphia, said an aim of the standing doctrine is to prevent courts from deciding questions "where the harm is too vague." He observed that a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."
Judge Surrick acknowledged that "standing can be a difficult concept for lawyers and nonlawyers alike." Nonetheless, he wrote, "standing has been a consistent barrier to lower courts hearing generalized, undifferentiated claims by voters and citizens."
Sometimes, the issues raised are serious. In 1974, for instance, the Supreme Court rejected a suit the Reservists Committee to Stop the War filed to expel members of Congress from the military reserves. The group alleged that the lawmakers were violating a constitutional provision barring senators and representatives from "holding any Office under the United States." By serving in the reserves, the group said, members of Congress were answerable to President Richard Nixon and therefore couldn't act as independent members of the legislative branch.
Once again, standing was the obstacle. The allegation was "simply a matter of speculation," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, but even if true, only affected "the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional government, and that is an abstract injury."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bookmarked. Thanks.
I suppose if the president in question were a Republican, the information would just have been leaked, very early in the process.
Then what should be the remedy for such issues? If you assume that Mr. Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of POTUS, who should remove him? Is it an unenforceable requirement? Do votes trump the Constitution?
So in other words “ ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”. Take to the streets with pitchfork and torch, tell Chuck You Schumer that America DOES CARE.
I have been saying this since last year, but it’s been falling on deaf ears.
I even brought up Jones v. Bush.
I have asked the question a few times before, but have been totally ignored. Can ANYBODY answer this question?
There have been many people here say that Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting these lawsuits. I have seen NO evidence that he has spent a penny. In none of the articles I have read is a lawyer for Obama mentioned. In EVERY case, the only lawyer mentioned is the one bringing the case before the court and asking for the case to go forward. In every case, they failed (possibly for the reasons mentioned in this article).
Where is there ANY independent documentation that shows Obama has spent any money on this?
Meanwhile, the entire Democrat congress and president are giving money away to their cronies at the working stiff's expense. They are stealing our money. Do I have standing to sue? The courts are a joke. We need a Pinochete to clean out the B@$t@rd$.
” Do votes trump the Constitution? “
Judges and Justices routinely ‘trump the Constitution’ without breaking a sweat....
(See also: “McCain-Feingold”)
Seems to me a lot of people can prove “concrete harm” from Obama being president.
I somewhat disagree. While I agree that it’s a waste of time right now, if/when any policies he signs cause harm (physical and/or financial), then the courts will be much more likely to say that someone has standing. For example, stopping off-shore drilling could cause harm to a company involved in such livelihood. If so, they could claim they were harmed because Barry Obama has stopped it. If they can show they have standing in a civil case, that can compel a defendent to prove that they have the right to such action and that the action was not fraudulent.
Judge Surrick said this? Or the fax he received from Chicago had that written out for him?
Obama worked at Sidley & Austin. Bill Ayer's father had a prominent friend with Sidley & Austin too.
Small world.
If I paid taxes.
Every time there is one of these threads, someone says this.
But he has produced the documentation.
What is generalized or undifferentiated about asking that Obama prove he is a natural born citizen? This is a specific person, and the charges are very specific as well. And it certainly does harm to citizens if an inelligible liar becomes Commander in Chief.
He has been "vetted"? By whom? Nobody has vetted his records or his birth certificate that I have heard of. Neither the DNC, nor the secretaries of state, nor the news media have done one damned thing to try to prove or disprove these very well founded suspicions. The media has completely ignored his entire history and life records. Completely.
In fact, the odds are pretty good that Obama is not an American citizen AT ALL. Not 100%, certainly, but IMHO much better than 50-50 that he was born a British subject, relinquished the American citizenship he probably didn't have to become an Indonesian citizen, and never took any steps to apply for American citizenship when he came of age or failed to register for the draft.
Uh, no, he hasn’t. A couple of liberal web sites have posted a poor image of the short-form COLB which is almost certainly a forgery, and which proves nothing since non-citizens were able to get COLBs in Hawaii at that time.
No he hasn’t.
“But he has produced the documentation.”
Where? When? In what form?
He’s not damaged by having a Kenyan as his president? Hell, we all are — in spades!
Excuse me.... Did anyone ever tell us that Bill Clinton was a rapist? No; not until after the fact and he was being impeached. Our wonderful lawmakers knew it; yet chose to say nothing and we got a rapist for a President.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. He has not produced the vault copy that shows the name of the hospital and the name of the attending physician. It's a damn $15 document. Why has he spent nearly a million dollars in legal fees to obfuscate the issue? You don't have a definitive answer that will stand up in court.
Thanks TommyDale. This is the question and why won’t he produce his real bc?
Congress. The House through impeachment and the Senate through trial and removal, if convicted. But first you would need to prove he is not Constitutionally qualified.
The Senate just looked the other way. They are as corrupt and vile as Clinton himself. Unfortunately, most of that corrupt bunch still "serves" in the Senate today.
You are right. I can not stomach Bill Clinton and that he served as President there are simply no words.
Pure hyperbole. Who writes this purple crap, anyway?? How can you vet what you can't GET? Did they vet his birth records, school and college records? Did they vet his performace in the Illinois Senate, or the U.S. Senate. Sickening.
Just saying he hasn't doesn't make it true.
"He has not produced the vault copy that shows the name of the hospital and the name of the attending physician. It's a damn $15 document."
It doesn't have to be the "vault copy". The constitutional qualifications for office have nothing to do with hospitals and doctors.
The document you get when you pay the fee and request your Hawaiian birth certifcate, is the one that has been posted on the internet.
"Why has he spent nearly a million dollars in legal fees to obfuscate the issue?"
He hasn't. That's a birther myth.
As far as the standing issue is concerned, the suit filed in CA was brought by a candidate for President listed on the official election ballot. I cannot imagine such suit being thrown out on the "standing" issue. However, I do assume it will be discarded on some basis because I do not think any court is ultimately going to take up the issue.
Finally, I am intrigued by the article's statement that "sometimes" important issues are not addressed due to lack of standing, and he gives 'congressmen serving in the reserves' as his important issue, whereas the constitutional qualification of the President is a piddling thing. Weird, if you ask me.
That’s not a ‘good’ explanation of anything.
We all can easily prove that we have been irreparably harmed by Obama’s fraudulent candidacy.
Standing is an elitist fiction.
“would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.”
You cannot vette what you cannot know. The candiate voted for by millions simply lied and kept the information from them.
What then, oh wizened judge?? Why aren’t any one of those millions a victim of fraud and therefore harmed significantly?
Don't just direct your skepticism at Obama. Apply it as well to the birther claims. Demand proof. You'll find the claims fail to have any.
There are a number of very good photos of the document. It is not "almost certainly a forgery". There is no credible evidence of forgery at all.
Hawaii does not just hand out COLBs stating you are born in Honolulu, to anyone.
No, this is a representitive republic.
This is the real reason...it has nothing to do with standing and everything to do with personal opinions, political correctness and lack of guts.
"Standing" is required of any lawsuit. The rules for standing have been established for a long time. Without a qualification for standing, you could have a million people all starting court cases. That's hardly a practical scenario.
I have looked very carefully at the COLBs posted on the net. They appear to be forgeries. And, yes, Hawaii does issue COLBs to non-citizens.
We do not know that the original document states that he was born in Honolulu, since we have never seen the original document.
And if you carefully read the official statements of officials of the government of Hawaii, NONE of them has claimed that he was. They have only said the have the original document in a vault and are keeping it there unless Obama releases it—which he refuses to do.
Perhaps you can give us some explanation why he refuses to release his birth certificate or other records, as every other recent president has done, with the exception of Bill Clinton?
Please go to Dr. Orly's website http://defendourfreedoms.us/ and contribute to her PayPal. This lovely little Russian immigrant is working herself to exhasution to save YOUR country. It is reported that she is surviving on 3-4 hours sleep per night and is bearing much of the expense of her lawsuits herself.
>>>Why aren’t any one of those millions a victim of fraud and therefore harmed significantly?
Unfortunately, we will be if we don’t right this wrong.
What about them appears to be a forgery?
"And, yes, Hawaii does issue COLBs to non-citizens."
And you base that claim on what?
"We do not know that the original document states that he was born in Honolulu, since we have never seen the original document."
The one we have seen is proof of the location of birth. Seeing the long form isn't necessary to prove that.
"And if you carefully read the official statements of officials of the government of Hawaii, NONE of them has claimed that he was."
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said in the three paragraph statement.
"No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i," the statement concludes.Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
"Perhaps you can give us some explanation why he refuses to release his birth certificate..."
He has. Again, apply your skepticism to the birther claims, not just to Obama.
Maybe the 9-11 Truthers and the 8-04 Birthers could go halvesies on a clubhouse.
?? Original Birth Certificate? Hospital? Doctor's signature?
Sure. They already share Phil Berg. He could be clubhouse leader.
Thread on Dr. Orly’s work: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2184010/posts
I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not, but Obama has NOT released his “birth certificate”. It is a distinct document from the COLB and the two documents have different legal purposes. I do not know where he was born, but the ongoing refusal to produce the official certificate contained in the “vault” is somewhat vexing. And, No, Dr. Fukino does not say where Obama was born. If, hypothetically speaking, it turned out Obama was born in Kenya and was transported to HA in a few days, there is nothing in Fukino’s statement which would be false.
You are mistaken. The COLB is an official Hawaiian birth certificate, and is legal proof of the facts contained on it.
From the document itself: "This copy servers as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b),338-19]"
And a statement from Hawaii:
"Backers of the idea that Mr. Obama isn't a natural-born citizen say Mr. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't quell the issue. They say a certification can be obtained after birth.""But the Hawaii State Department of Health said Monday that there is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID, said Alvin Onaka, a research and statistics officer at the Department of Health."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sorry,
“This copy servers” = “This copy serves”
Really? Have you seen it? The documentation that has been produced is not what was requested. His documentation is a forgery that anyone could do, especially in Hawaii.
The certificate in question is a fake for the simple reason that certificates issued during the time when BHO was born didn’t even remotely look like the one that is currently posted. The one posted is BHO’s attempt to legitimize himself by using a certificate form of recent design.
It appears to me that you are a Dim lurker and I suggest that you just give it up. Everything that is being discussed in this thread now has already been posted ad naseum. You can search FR and see all the pictures of all of the documents yourself.
And you won't find a spec of it in the constitution, nor in any legislative act. - Its all fiction.
Actually, standing is seldom required of any lawsuit. Its only invoked to provide protection to a hidden protected class.
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.