Posted on 07/02/2010 1:23:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter "Appellants") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. ..." U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.
(snip)
Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
They turn down your case because Obama is “The Won”, then they want you to show cause why you brought the case.
MAYBE IF THEY LISTENED TO THE CASE THEY WOULD SEE THE CAUSE.
Sooner or later zero/$$swipe will be GONE!
Sooner or later zero/$$swipe will be GONE!
Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Sooner...January 2013
Later...January 2017.
In the meantime...ELECT CONSERVATIVES!!!
That's a knee-jerk response. You should read the full decision. It is very clear that the 3rd Circuit Panel did "listen." They read and considered the briefs, cited each of the appellants' claims in their response, and took care to respond to each claim (citing precedents for their decisions) and even acknowledged the appellants' frustration with the whole process.
*ping*
Its only ok to sue Palin. What about the part of the lawsuit concerning the lack of vetting ?
“...damages and costs for pursuing a frivolous appeal.”
But....World Nut Daily said “Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544087/posts
Admittedly, OldDeckHand wrote:
” The 3rd Circuit ISN’T going to “consider whether Obama is even American”. What they are considering is if the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s MTD, based on the lack of standing by plaintiffs. That’s it. If the 3rd Circuit three-judge panel concludes that it (the lower court) did err in granting the MTD, then they’ll remand to the district court. Since they’ve not scheduled oral arguments in the case, it’s not encouraging for appellants.”
But still...they don’t seem to have considered the case on its merits...or even that it HAD merit. Of course, the ‘standing problem’ was described here:
“We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.””
Could it be that ODH was right, and the superb WND was...wrong?
They read and considered the briefs, cited each of the appellants’ claims in their response, and took care to respond to each claim (citing precedents for their decisions) and even acknowledged the appellants’ frustration with the whole process.
WND can’t be wrong because Obama is bad.
This constitutes heresy around here. lol
It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing.
Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue.
Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!
The judge must not have been to the supermarket lately:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2545580/posts
I also find it perplexing that nation of Mexico has standing to sue in US Courts against the Arizona statute.
But our own citizens have no standing in the court system.
Wing Nut Daily wrong? Say it ain't so! And I've always held in such high regard their "We found it on a blog somewhere and omitted the parts that didn't fit the story" style of investigative journalism.
I remember when that was an insult. :)
Mexico does not have standing to sue. They filed a "friend of the court" brief, which is something very different.
The rule that the Supreme Court has followed since at least the 1920s is, essentially, that if everyone has standing, no one has standing-- if the allegedly-illegal act affects everyone in the whole country, it is up to the elected branches of government to fix it. That is why no court ever ruled on any of the myriad challenges to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War, for example.
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.