Posted on 09/25/2008 4:32:09 AM PDT by Revski
The Constitution lays out the qualifications for president. There is no evidence that Obama fails to meet those qualifications. There is no law requiring him, or any other candidate to present proof of age or natural-born citizenship status to any federal agency prior to running for office.
So since Obama is not required to prove he isn't a citizen, then it's up to you all to prove he isn't. How are you all doing on that front?
I certainly have seen some things that should make a court say, "Hmmm...". Wouldn't it be better for a judge or jury to decide if there's sufficient evidence?
Your first statement is correct. But the Supreme Court has surprisingly limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case in a very narrow set of circumstances as listed in the Constitution. Federal courts, in general, have specific jurisdiction- i.e., they have no legal jurisdiction unless it has been specificially granted. State courts, on the other hand, tend to have jurisdiction over any case, unless specifically excluded. Despite what some people might think, something like 96% of all legal cases in this country ar handled in state courts.
The definition of “standing” is often a moving target in that courts manipulate the term to get rid of cases they don't want to hear or to take cases that would otherwise escape judicial review. Generally, however, a person has standing to sue if they have suffered harm that is distinct to the public at large.
In moving to dismiss the compliant, the Obama defendants reply upon Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008). In that case, the plaintiff sued to block McCain from running for president on the grounds that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, not a naturalized born person, and therefore, unqualified to serve as president. According to the Obama defendants, the federal district court dismissed the McCain lawsuit, not on the merits, but because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue in that he failed to demonstrate a harm distinct from the general public. The Obama defendants ask the court to dismiss the Berg action for the same reason. (Note that I have not read the McCain decision and therefore, I do not know whether, in fact, the court dismissed that lawsuit because the plaintiff lacked standing.)
As I indicated above, the definition of “standing” is anything but precise, and courts have manipulated the definition to dismiss cases they really don't want to hear and to take cases that would otherwise escape judicial review. If I were Berg, then I would argue in favor of the relaxed standard because if Berg doesn't have standing, then who does have standing to challenge the Constitutionally mandated qualifications of a candidate for POTUS? Unfortunately, in all likelihood, the court will reject the argument because the harm that Berg will suffer is no worse than any other eligible voter. The only realistic way for Berg to win this case is to either (a) join Hillary Clinton or one of the other unsuccessful democratic candidates for president as a plaintiff; and/or (b) join McCain/Palin as a plaintiff.
That is about the same level of evidence that people have posted to support the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
This is sad but true.
Even if Hussein did produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate, that alone would not answer all of the eligibility issues in Berg’s complaint. Read the complaint. There are a myriad of citizenship and perjury aspects involved with his Indonesian adoption/residence, Illinois bar application, etc.
Berg v. Obumpa
Obama is a NoObama. :)
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.