If you read the federal rules of civil procedure, it becomes clear that we don’t have standing. There is no unique injury that is particularized and concrete to one plaintiff. Every voter suffers the same injury from an ineligible POTUS. And there is no remedy that the court can grant. The court can’t remove a sitting president.
That doesn’t mean Obama is eligible. It just means, we can’t pursue this method of removing him. We’ll have to find another way.
I am trying to understand that. But I think Keyes had a particular injury from odumbo running even while ineligible
I also thought surely an active duty military member would have particular injury having to take orders from an ineligible President.
Since this isn’t working it looks like all we have is election 2012
By then he will have done a ton of damage an by then MSM will have convinced a ton of people he really is the chosen one
Footnote 5 from the bottom of page 11:
"Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices."
Basically, the judge says it is up the legislative branch to ensure a properly qualified President is elected. Since they have qualified him and installed him into office, the court has nothing to say about it.
Well, there you are citizens. Now shut up and move along.
Well what about former owners of car dealerships? oil servcie companies, GM stock owners.........i'm sure they and their accountants could show detailed losses.
There are several means of pursuing judicial remedy that are not dependent upon individual standing. Apuzzo has constructed a well-considered argument, that deserves to be heard and the issue decided.
Just thinking out loud, here, without having researched the matter: class action on behalf of Constitutional natural-born citizens, who have been disenfranchised by an apparent taking, of Constitutional status reserved solely unto them?
RICO? I’d think a careful perusal of FR alone, over the past year and a half, could provide sufficient cites to build a plausible case.
And no, don’t even go into Orly Taitz, Lawyer-Dentist. Just because she’s thrown the term RICO out during one of her patented soapbox garbles doesn’t mean that the issue has actually been approached in that manner. If there’s any actual relevancy, better jump on it before she $#!ts the bed, though, imho.
I suspect by 2012, even with a Republican congress correcting the economy, he will be toast. Clinton was saved by the Pubs. I dont think they will have time to turn it around for him like Newt did for BJ.
2012, we will have a Pub House, Senate, and POTUS.
TOTUS will be in the dumpster of history.
That doesn’t mean Obama is eligible. It just means, we can’t pursue this method of removing him. We’ll have to find another way.
It just means that you are delusional.
Do you think Oboemata realized that once elected there is nothing in the Constitution where he could be easily removed...Seems the only way is impeachment by Congress for a very serious offense...Guess not revealing your true country of birth is not an impeachable offense...He knows this and so do most of the JD’s he has surrounded himself with as advisors and cabinet members...
On the other hand there certainly has been an abuse of power by virtue of ignoring the ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Executive and Legislative branches, where the WH has gone far beyond the boundaries and has virtually dictated a reorganization of this country by proclimations and edicts by the POTUS, his Cabinet, his unnacountable ‘czars’, and his spineless cronies in the Legislative Branch..A fawning mass media is not part of this process but it certainly does not help the situation..
As Reilly used to say ‘ What a revoltin’ development’....