Posted on 10/25/2008 1:09:10 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
NewMediaJournal.us www.NewMediaJournal.us |
BREAKING NEWS Berg Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed Jeff Schreiber, America's Right (Hat tip: Atlas Shrugs) The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15pm on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing. Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations. Read more... |
About The New Media Journal: The New Media Journal is an independent, publicly supported, new media publication dedicated to bringing you, the reader, the very best and the most accurate news and opinion on the Internet. Unlike most new media opinion venues who accept each submitted opinion-editorial, regardless of quality, The New Media Journal scours the Internet for the very best so that you can find them all in one place. Each day our staff compiles the best selection of headline news, headlines devoid of editorialization, so as to offer a more accurate depiction of the events that are happening around the world - and in your backyard. In essence, we at The New Media Journal search the Internet - the new media and the old - for the very best in news and commentary so that you can find it all in one place. We know your time is valuable and we appreciate that you trust us as your new media news and opinion source of choice.
-END- |
Clinton appointee. Wonder how the other’s will fare? Maybe Obama will be given a walk on this and the American people will end up the losers.
Never trust the Clinton or the Clintonistas.
Surely he expected this and will continue to push it to the Supreme Court.
Well, if so, then it should go to the Supremes like...yesterday.
Does this mean the suit may not be dissmissed? WTF is going on?
Non sequitur. Standing has nothing to do with evidence.
I think Obama made a deal with the Clintons otherwise this thing would still be going to court - what a bunch of Cr*p!
What do they mean no standing? A citizen doesn’t have the right to know if the candidate to POTUS is even constitutionally eligible for the job?
Yeah, Hillary is going to be Secretary of State.....you betcha.
The cover-up continues.
My question exactly.
The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.
Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.
Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obamas childhood form the basis of Plaintiffs allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his fathers native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiffs opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obamas cover-up.A judges attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiffs claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at Americas Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiffs particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitutions eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as its done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidates ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where "an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate's eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure."
Here are some exerpts from the article:
Posted on Sat, Oct. 25, 2008
Judge rejects Montco lawyers bid to have Obama removed from ballot
By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News
hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656
A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.
He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Bergs request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Bergs complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.
They said that Bergs claims were ridiculous and patently false, that Berg had no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.
Surrick agreed.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Bergs allegations of harm were too vague and too attenuated to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Read more here:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews
Here are Citizen Wells thoughts on the ruling:
Philip J Berg will appeal Judge Surricks decision and take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. The Citizen Wells blog will produce an article soon to help clarify how the Constitution must be upheld. In conjunction with the American public, we will hold all responsible for the election, accountable.
Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:
Case Dismissed Berg to appeal
So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitutions eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.
Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a great writer but never a good speaker or advocate and never comfortable in court. He believed that judges should be technical specialists but should not set policy. He denounced the 1801 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison as a violation of democracy, but he did not have enough support in Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn it. He continued to oppose the doctrine of judicial review:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[46]
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson
“The political process”????. If the Dems are in control, then the constitutional requirements for POTUS will be ignored.
Berg it seems lacked standing as only a mere citizen to question The Obama.
Sad, that being an American citizen isn’t enough to question someone who intends to rule you.
I was quoting the judge’s opinion.
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.