Berg v Obama Appeal scheduled for Oct 26/2009

scribd ^ | Oct 9.2009 | Clerk Marcia M. Waldron

[Elderberry]

From Scribd: The case will be submitted on the Briefs on Monday October 26 2009 pursuant to 3rd Cir. LAR 34.1(a).

Since there will be no oral argument, your presence will not be required.

[Elderberry]

Will they ever say We have Standing?

[Wally_Kalbacken]

No, but in fact I would bet that the result of this hearing on the briefs will be a dismissal for, among other things, lack of standing.

[Frantzie]

Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo are still plugging away. Kudos to both of them.

[American Constitutionalist]

Is this just one of Phil Berg's cases against Obama ?
Why does he not have standing if this or other cases Berg filed was before the election ? or Obama's swearing in ?

[Elderberry]

I believe this is one of his cases where he jumped straight to the Supreme court and they kicked it back down.

Then the lower court ruled. You guessed it. No standing.
And now the appeal.

[mlo]

That’s good. With Orly’s case about to be dismissed, I was afraid it would get boring.

[taxesareforever]

“No, but in fact I would bet that the result of this hearing on the briefs will be a dismissal for, among other things, lack of standing.”

How is it that an American citizen does not have standing when other cases, such as an environmentalist, have no problem getting their cases before a judge.

[Elderberry]

No we can’t have that. All the DOJ positions would be downsized.

[kukaniloko]

If you read many of the hardest hitting standing cases, it is conservative justices keeping the environuts out of the courthouse based on lack of standing.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

In some instances the federal statute grants standing to individual citizens (this is particularly true in the case of environmental legislation.)

Generally, a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge a federal expenditure. The exception is in first amendment challenges (e.g., where the expenditure was in the form of aid to education, that was to be spent through churches or religious schools - in those instances general taxpayers have been found to have standing to challenge.)

I do not know how you get standing or jurisdiction on the the Obama natural citizenship question. I think it (the idea of a President elected and inaugurated without being truly qualified) is an example of something so incomprehensible and unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution - that they did not address where the power to certify qualifications would rest in the organization of government. It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.

[Uncle Chip]

No we can’t have that. All the DOJ positions would be downsized.

LOL

[Uncle Chip]

I do not know how you get standing or jurisdiction on the the Obama natural citizenship question. I think it (the idea of a President elected and inaugurated without being truly qualified) is an example of something so incomprehensible and unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution - that they did not address where the power to certify qualifications would rest in the organization of government. It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.

If that is indeed the case, then there is no reason not to grant standing in these cases. The court system is there to supplement those areas where there is a void in the law or where public officials have failed to enforce what is already there..

[Non-Sequitur]

Bump

[Sibre Fan]

That’s good. With Orly’s case about to be dismissed, I was afraid it would get boring.

Don't get your hopes up. The opinion is probably going to be issued on October 26 - and the Court has already indicated its view on the matter in its two prior rulings denying Berg's request for stays. In two prior rulings, the 3rd Circuit denied Berg's request, stating (from second order: "As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable controversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal." So we already have a pretty good idea of the 3rd Circuit's view of the case.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Not really. Look up the “political question” doctrine - it’s an entire realm of problems which the courts cede to the Congress. Courts could make decisions in those areas but they recognize that they would be invading the territory of another branch of government. So, under the notion of separation of powers, they don’t go there. It’s not as though they could grant standing to a plaintiff and then decide a “political question” brought by that plaintiff. In the situation with Obama - again it is a novel (and very strange) situation - but clearly removal of a President once in office is left to the Congress. But their Constitutional imprimatur is to remove on conviction of “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office only.

[Uncle Chip]

Courts could make decisions in those areas but they recognize that they would be invading the territory of another branch of government.

Since when did that ever stop them???

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Since 1803. Marbury v. Madison.

[Uncle Chip]

Since 1803. Marbury v. Madison.

Then someone needs to notify them immediately.

[plenipotentiary]

The Courts are trying to pretend it’s a Political Question, so they can use lack of standing to get rid, but this is really a Constitutional question, so no standing is required. The Courts have a duty to uphold the Constitution.

[Sibre Fan]

The Courts are trying to pretend it’s a Political Question, so they can use lack of standing to get rid, but this is really a Constitutional question, so no standing is required. The Courts have a duty to uphold the Constitution.

Well, not quite.

First, under established law, standing is required to raise a Constitutional question.

Second, "standing" is irrelevant to the Political Question Doctrine. In other words, even if a person does have "standing," the court cannot hear the case if it raises a "political question."

So, the standing/constitutional issue, and the political question issue are two different concepts.