Yes, I am saying that unfortunately.
You may have been damaged politically. Or spiritually. But name the specific, quantifiable damage that you have specifically suffered because Obama is the president. Please remember that the damages have to be specific and unique to you - not shared by 150 million people.
Birthers don’t understand what they going to unleash if they get their way on this standing thing.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you have bad tomatoes in your garden? Sue the federal government for acid rain.
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
So by this logic the Federal Government could theoretically confiscate guns and I would not be able to sue them if I didn’t own one to begin with. Likewise, even if I did own one I wouldn’t be able to sue as long as I was financially compensated for the weapon since no financial damage was incurred. What is clearly stated in the Constitution is that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen. If I am not damaged by a non citizen then becoming president, what other clauses being dismissed am I not damaged by. And if so, what remains of the meaning of having a constitution and living under the rule of law rather than the whim of men?
Yes, I am saying that unfortunately.
You may have been damaged politically. Or spiritually. But name the specific, quantifiable damage that you have specifically suffered because Obama is the president. Please remember that the damages have to be specific and unique to you - not shared by 150 million people.
Birthers don’t understand what they going to unleash if they get their way on this standing thing.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you have bad tomatoes in your garden? Sue the federal government for acid rain.
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
Can you explain then how a disgruntled atheist can get standing to sue the federal government because of a cross on a lone hill in the Mojave Desert??? Federal judges have no fixed rules for standing and and they have shown it regularly by some of the goofy cases that they hear and consider.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you sympathize with the spotted owl or the fish darter, sue the federal government, be granted standing [even though you are not a fish or owl], have your case heard, be granted discovery, and win. Is that what you are saying???
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
Who wants them changed. We want the same rights to standing and having a valid Constitutional case heard as the atheist and deranged environmentalist and global warming nutcases. Is that asking too much???
The fish darter is not in the Constitution, nor is any mention of spotted owls nor crosses on lone hills in the desert, but the "natural born citizen" clause is front and center.
The hypocrisy and duplicity of the federal courts along with the corruption of the Constitution in the process is what we are all seeing here --
BTW Welcome to Free Republic, Mr Plant.
You are a "plant", right???