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.
*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?
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.
WOW ! What a great idea to impose possible sanctions for those foolish enough to actually BELIEVE in the Constitution ! Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the best way for a defendant to settle a lawsuit is to provide something called ‘evidence’ ?
GOD FORBID any of these sinister judges actually request our mega-million dollar funded Pres__dent to spend $12.00 and produce a real birth ceritficate !
So what is next? Appeal to the SCOTUS
The continued “standing” dance around the central issue that is so simple to resolve.
Only Plaintiffs who have had provable and tangible damages as a direct result of Obama’s actions would have standing.
Like the car dealers, for instance.
Or, maybe even the people who have lost jobs because of him.
No where in the Opinion did they state where Obama was born.
We the people have a contract with our Government that Demands a Natural born citizen with no allegiance to any foreign power. That requires a specific birth location to be public information.
The constitution continues to be violated. We have a Kenyan born citizen putting our country into bankruptcy.
The court fails to document the specifics of our presidents origins ... because they can't.
We can point to the very ground where Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky. We can see the building where Reagan was born. We can see the home in Massachusetts where Kennedy was born.
But, we must not know where Obama was born. This is antithetical to our constitution. Our constitution demands the answer. This court has spit on that constitution.
The President know enslaves future generations to debt that can never be repaid, just as a Slave master burden's his slave with chains.
In November, the slave will grab the whip and wrap it around his masters neck.