Posted on 06/29/2010 7:06:51 PM PDT by Man50D
Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president – in fact, he may not even be American.
Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently cancelled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.
A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, who was appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, who was appointed by George W. Bush.
The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but there's no published timetable for a decision to be released.
The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer,
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks for the ping.
Who IS this guy?
“We’re Nuts Daily” doesn’t make an attempt at getting things right. Any legal case they review will confuse them, since logic and law are meaningless to nuts.
Part of the decision being appealed:
“Article III Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ...and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson,
Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.
418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,
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.”
“Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8.)
While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing.”
Obviously, Obama is determined to destroy the USA.
Just one honest judge, or one honest court, could get the ball rolling back toward survival of the nation.
The list, ping
And it never fails!!!
SPs!!!
I’m curious...do you believe Obama to be an American citizen?
= EPIC FAIL OF APPEAL (wish i was wrong)
I confess to being very slow on the uptake yesterday on your post. Now on a bright morning with a fix of caffein, I get it. I presume any Democrat that did so rule and raise the spectre of ineligibility, the knives would be out. Knives, as in the highly skilled operatives who infest politics. If Hillary got in as president: such rewards, such paybacks also. (chuckle).
I took the opportunity of posting because on the Larry King Show last night, Mr King announced his ending his reign in a few months. Bill Maher, that soul of wit and superb insight (sarc) was asked this question. (Gravelly voice)..... "Some people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States".
The figure given was, I believe 24%. Maher put on his sneering Alinsky driven voice. "Yeah, some people believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ". He quipped something about he being around if it happened. He then threw in that some people believe Obama is the anti-Christ.
Now that question is out there on the elegibility. It simply will not go away.
B U M P
“A 8th grade journalism student could have written a better and plainly more accurate story.
Maybe someday you too might able to do the same.”
Was it necessary to lob a snarky personal insult at a fellow Freeper? I appreciated Deckhand’s synopsis. It helped me to understand the case. Even if I hadn’t found it useful, I’d have refrained from making it personal with a Freeper in good standing. Obama is the problem, not fellow conservatives.
Obviously, you are a bit confused about his standing here.
If someone is going to insult someone’s writing, then he should at least do it with a correctly written sentence.
So you think personal insults—and it came across as snarky to me—are the way to go. As a Christian, I refrain when I can. I am unaware that OldDeckHand was persona non grata at FR. Why hasn’t he been banned?
Note: I am a professional writer. In my FR posts I sometimes make mistakes. This is because I write more causally for FR, and sometimes I’m in a hurry. I’ve seen Freepers go hammer and tong after even small mistakes in posts. I’ve never understood that. Where is the Golden Rule in such an attitude? If I had never made even a small mistake in a post, I still wouldn’t come after somebody else for such a thing. Presumably the people at WND are pros. I would draw a distinction between facts they put out on their website and a casual FR post. To do otherwise strikes me as a cheap shot.
lol, are you serious? You must be joking, because it was olddeckhand that made the insult. So maybe you should be a good Christian and direct your thoughts to him, not me.
Deckhand personally insulted you? I missed it.
[Please note: is it personal insults against fellow Freepers that I don’t understand. Unless the person in question is on probation or has otherwise been warned they are in jeopardy, I go on the assumption that he/she is a conservative. I save my firepower for liberals and their ilk. In-fighting, making it personal, and lobbing snarky insults against fellow Freepers bothers me whenever I see it. If somebody did it to you, Brown Deer, it would bother me just as much. You and I and our fellow Freepers are not the enemy. The enemy is waging a devastating attack on this country that we mutually love so much. Why go after each other when we can go after the real problem?]
Regarding FOIA Request
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/the-docs-foia-part-mcmvlii/
I finally got a response out of the US Department of State about when I might expect a response to my January 2009 Freedom of Information Act request.
“they are aware of your request. At this point I have nothing new to report”
***
I asked the US Department of State for details of all the passports issued to Stanley Ann D. Obama/Dunham/Soetoro.
This is requested under the US Freedom of Information Act.
You obviously don’t know his track record of defending 0bama. So you’ve missed more than you think.
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.