Posted on 03/23/2010 10:49:42 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
That's right, because the plaintiff wasn't a candidate on the ballot. Read my post #99.
This issue still has legs. Most of the things I point out shows why it can’t be resolved by jpgs, ambiguous statements from slippery bureaucrats and poor understanding of Constitutional law.
This issue still has legs. Most of the things I point out shows why it can’t be resolved by jpgs, ambiguous statements from slippery bureaucrats and poor understanding of Constitutional law.
Yet, they haven't resolved anything in regard to Obama's eligibility questions.
Taitz is unbalanced to put it kindly. This woman seriously has way too much time on her hands.
First of all, Sarah Palin was not competing with Obama, she was competing with the, presumably, eligible Biden.
But there is no right to be President. There "injury" is no more than ours.
OTOH, anyone who held "old GM" or "old Chrysler stock" has been greatly injured.
Besides, this was dismissed for lack of "failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted" not standing, which is more like "failure to allege a particularlized injury".
Berg brought this case under the federal interpleader statute, precisely to avoid the standing issue. The problem was that this case had absolutely nothing to do with interpleader. (Interpleader is when someone is holding money but isn't sure which of two or more claimants it belongs to, and doesn't want to get sued multiple times, so he turns it over to the court to let the claimants fight it out.) So the court dismissed it for failure to state a claim, and sanctioned Hemenway (Berg's local counsel) for filing a frivolous suit, because this simply wasn't an interpleader situation. (Something I pointed out on FR when the suit was filed, and some people were praising Berg's "genius" in finding a way around the standing problem.)
First of all, Sarah Palin was not competing with Obama, she was competing with the, presumably, eligible Biden.
But there is no right to be President. There “injury” is no more than ours.
OTOH, anyone who held “old GM” or “old Chrysler stock” has been greatly injured.
Besides, this was dismissed for lack of “failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted” not standing, which is more like “failure to allege a particularlized injury”.
You have mentioned the third requirement of “standing” which is “redressability” or stating a claim upon which relief can be granted:
The three standing requirements:
(1) Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
(2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
(3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
So what, the Constitution assumes the electoral votes are independent. And they are. It's only the modern practice of electors pledging who they would vote for that ties them together.
1) Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
(2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
(3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
I thought redressability was a separate issue from "standing".
Isn't causation something to be determined at trial?
I thought redressability was a separate issue from “standing”.
Isn’t causation something to be determined at trial?
Shouldn’t everyone know this story???
The First Time I Heard of Barack Obama
By Tom Fife
11-20-2008
During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.
V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.
One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.
As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge – one her husband tried to quietly rein in.
The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:
“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it.”
The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.
“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”
The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”
The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”
She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly – as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”
We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.
She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.
She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”
At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.
Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”
She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.
So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?
Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.
Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.
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.