Posted on 08/22/2008 9:51:22 AM PDT by Diamond
The guy would have standing to sue as a member of the Democrat Party and as a Voting Citizen of the United States. As a Democrat he would be compromised by his party nominating an ineligible nominee. As a US Citizen his rights would be compromised by an ineligible nomination by disenfranchising his vote.
There is certainly standing. If there was no standing the TRO would have been dismissed on that basis. The Judge makes a determination of standing before issuing any ruling. He denied the TRO but held open the Motion for Injunction until the other Parties have been served.
I wouldn’t dismiss this suit so fast. My guess is that the Republicans have been waiting to hit him with this after the nomination anyway.
Cite specifically where the Constitution prohibits dual citizenship as a precondition for being President. You won't find it.
More importantly, since he held an Indonesian Citizenship We know Obama did not retake his US Citizenship at least until he was 20 since he was in possession of an Indonesian Passport.
What proof do you have that Obama held Indonesian citizenship or an Indonesian passport? This is more conjecture and speculation.
I guess that he maintained his US Passport fraudulently; using it to return to the US. Eventually he just discontinued using his Indonesian Citizenship. He may STILL be a citizen there.
The US doesn't care if held dual citizenship as long as such citizenship does not require one to renounce their American citizenship. Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship except for children under 18 and that law was just implemented. Again, more speculation but short on facts. Prove that Obama held Indonesian citizenship and that he had an Indonesian passport. Asserting something doesn't make it so.
FYI: In order for Obama to hold a US passport, he had to provide proof of US citizenship, i.e., Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state or Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth or Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship. If you don't have those, then you must provide AND as many of the following as possible: Baptismal certificate, Hospital birth certificate, Census record, Early school record,Family bible record, and Doctor's record of post-natal care.
The trip to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at 20 years of age is the act that is going to sink him. Screw the legal argument, Joe Blow is not going to elect a guy who considered himself and Indonesian Muslim while he was in college. Obama has lied.
Prove it. We do know that Obama has an American passport. How did he get it?
“It’s on Hannity’s forum. The parties haven’t been served yet. It’s not even in the Pacer system in Pa yet.”
More than likely the “serving” will not take place or if it does it will take place after the DEM convention. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the info.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17389
"Topic closed...
"Reason: Question to debate inflammatory and/or not conducive to reasoned debate."
And I thought our mods were tough.
LOL!!!!
Reminder:
Obama’s main role is to confirm that voting machines count Clinton’s 5 pct votes correctly.
Sorry, I don't think that this gives you standing. Standing requires individual, particularized harm. What you described is not; rather, you've essentially described Flast standing, in which everyone has the same basic injury. That doesn't fly outside of establishment clause cases.
It was posted to PACER on Friday.
The TRO was denied and there may be some news on the timetable later today.
To clarify my point, take a look at the Court's decision last year in Lance v. Coffman, which denied standing to Colorado citizens to challenge Congressional districting. It is precisely on point. Here's a quote:
"[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every other citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy."
“The constitution says you cannot hold dual citizenship and run for office of President.”
Please find and post that clause. I can’t find it.
"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
A Natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen, and why was that? The reason was simple, in notes of the founding fathers they mention not wanting divided loyalties.
A natural born citizen of that time was unlikely to ever obtain citizenship from another country, while a naturalized citizen would most likely have citizenship from their native country.
Therefore the founding fathers intent was clear: If you have dual citizenship or any other ties to other countries that would divide your loyalty then you are not eligible for President.
Barrack has dual citizenship, or had it,and he has divided loyalties, therefore he is not eligible by law.
This is a fact. Some people choose not to interpret the constitutional requirements this way but I see it as it was intended to be, no dual citizenship or other divided loyalties, not interpretation is needed actually.
There is nothing on that page that indicates a person who has dual nationality can be the President. The constitution is extremely clear; the wording is not subject to confusion.
Inflammatory debate: What debates aren’t? :)
Thanks for the ping, I’ve been going through FR withdrawals for what..almost 24 hrs!
Please provide the wording from the Constitution.
FR is really slow today, so I’ll have to check back in later to see your reply.
Here’s what I’ve gathered so far about who is eligible to run for president:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
“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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. “
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The guy would have standing to sue as a member of the Democrat Party and as a Voting Citizen of the United States. “
IMO, Every properly registered voter in the USA has “standing” to prevent someone who is not qualified under the terms of the Constirution to run for office.
If we all don’t stand up for the Constitution, we will fall for anything.
The Constitution also requires a case and controversy. Seems like this is a political question, not a judicial one.
Berg isn’t raising a argument with GOVERNMENT. He is raising a problem with the PARTY who he is a member of. That gives him STANDING.
Berg was a Deputy Attorney General of the state. He is a very experienced trial lawyer. Standing is not something he just missed.
Standing requires individual, particularized harm. >>>>>>
I’m a bit confused and I don’t want to be rude, but this is pretty simple:
If BHO knows he is not eligible and is dupping the Democrat party to become their nominee then he is committing fraud (which is one of the counts of the suit). That fraud would adverserely affect each individual democrat. That couldn’t be more individual and particularized harm.
So I don’t get your argument, especially about the establishment clause.
Someone else is asking me to PROVE that BHO traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. How should I know? It isn’t my lawsuit. What I said was, if that is true he is in a world of trouble.
You guys need to lay back and watch this unfold. Philip Berg is a big time trial lawyer. For some reason you non-lawyers want to address the issue of standing with him like he is a law student. Why don’t you just read the definition of standing out of the Black’s Law Dictionary to him.
I don’t know if this suit is real, if the accusations are real, BHO is in real trouble.
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.