That image of a dark haired woman with a black baby looks like a scene from a comedy movie, it’s up now:
http://judicial-inc.biz/bAnne_durham_revenge_arack_obama_arrives_in_jerusale.htm
Just filed. I’m on it. As I get details, I’ll share them here.
— Jeff
Because of its status as a government entity, the Federal Election Commission was given until today to file an answer to the original complaint filed by attorney Philip Berg on August 21, 2008. This afternoon, the FEC met that deadline when it filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, answering Berg’s complaint by arguing that he “lacks standing to raise the issue of a candidate’s constitutional eligibility.”
“Moreover,” the motion reads, “even if Berg had standing to raise the constitutional eligibility issue, the Commission should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.”
Like in the motions to dismiss filed by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee, the FEC maintains that Berg fails to meet the minimum requirements of standing.
Three elements constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct of the defendant (traceability), and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of the court ... The injury-in-fact required by Article III is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” as well as “actual or imminent,” rather than “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” The injury cannot be merely a generalized grievance about the government that affects all citizens or derives from an interest in the proper enforcement of the law.
That final sentence, from FEC v. Akins, truly shows the similarity between the issue of voter standing and the issue of taxpayer standing. Just as you or I could not sue the United States of America claiming to have standing simply because we are taxpayers, the FEC contends—just as was contended by Obama and the DNC, as well as the defendants in the three similar cases against John McCain—that voters cannot raise the issue of constitutional eligibility just because they are voters.
Posted by Jeff Schreiber 0 comments
This was sent to me I don’t have a link.