BERG v. OBAMA: Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case

Scribd ^ | Nov. 12, 2009 | Third Circuit Court of Appeals

[Sibre Fan]

* * *
In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).
* * *
“Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed.”6 Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.

Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action.

[Sibre Fan]

Today, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the first eligibility case, filed in August 2008 by Phil Berg. Full opinion available at the link.

[b4its2late]

Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?

[ZULU]

An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “

Sounds to me that the Court is dissembling. If what they state is in fact true, and Obama was not even a NATURALIZED citizen, or, for that matter, UNDER the age of 35, as required by the Constitution, his lack of qualifications for office would be irrelevant.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Because there is no case or controversy

No controversy Ping

[classified]

Even a powerful Clinton/Hillary lawyer can’t get passed go on this B.C. issu!

[b4its2late]

So, we’re screwed.

[silverleaf]

apparently it is no one’s Constitutional right to have a Constitutionally qualified President. Since generally the denial of one’s Constitutional rights is considered an injury.

But what do I know

[Las Vegas Ron]

Even a powerful Clinton/Hillary lawyer can’t get passed go on this B.C. issu!

Can you just imagine how much dirt the Chicago mob machine has on Hillary and Bill?

Hillary wouldn't dare go after this, imo

[null and void]

Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?

FVCK YOV, Citizen.

[autumnraine]

“Standing” was created very soon after America was formed and it was basically a way for a court to throw something out that they know they have no power to enforce.

[Sibre Fan]

Can you give us the jist in the short form instead of legal ease and preferably, English?

I can try. The Third Circuit held:

A. A voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate because, among other reasons, the voter can always support a candidate he believed was eligible. Moreover, even if placement of an ineligible candidate harmed the individual voter, that injury is too general to meet Article III requirements, because it would similarly harm all voters.

B. A voter does not have standing to challenge the qualifications of a sitting president because any alleged injury is shared by the entire country (including nonvoters)

C. The 10th Amendment is irrelevant to standing issues -- that is, the 10th Amendment does not create an individual right to sue to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate (or sitting President).

D. A voter does not have standing to sue the President of the Senate (i.e., Dick Cheney) for any alleged failure to call for objections during counting of the Electoral College vote, because that voter did not suffer particularlized injury. (Stated another way, just as an individual voter has no specific "injury" re: an "ineligible candidate" - the voter's injury caused by the alleged failure to call for objections is shared by all voters.)

E. A voter's First Amendment rights are not infringed when his political representative fails to do as he asks (i.e., here, to object to the electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor). The Court called this argument frivolous.

F. The District Court did not violate Berg's due process rights by dismissing the case. (Again, the court called this argument frivolous.)


-----------
The court marked the case "precedential" - which means that it is binding on the Third Circuit (and all courts in that circuit - i.e., all federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands).

This means that Kerchner's appeal, which is also in the Third District, is not likely to succeed. As to the three "citizen/voter" plaintiffs in Kerchner, this holding directly impacts their case - the Court has held that plaintiffs in their position have no standing.

Kerchner's status -- as a retired military officer, and not just as a voter -- is somewhat different, but, as his status is shared by tens of thousands of other retired military officers, it is not likely that the Court will find that he has standing either, given their ruling in this case.

[The Comedian]

GD it.

Yet another bought-off/threatened/treasonous/cowardly/Democrat judge proves the American court system is hopelessly corrupt, and an orderly, peaceful means of change within the current system is no longer an option.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Non-Sequitur]

I imagine the decision of the appeals court in Orly’s Keyes v Obama case will read pretty much the same.

[Sibre Fan]

Yet another bought-off/threatened/treasonous/cowardly/Democrat judge...

Actually, a three-judge panel decided this appeal. Two were appointed by Democrats (Carter/Clinton); one by Republican (Bush I).

The decision was unanimous, which means that the "Republican" judge agreed with the ruling.

2012 is the peaceful means for bringing about change within the system.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yet another bought-off/threatened/treasonous/cowardly/Democrat judge...

Damn. They're everywhere. </sarcasm>

[Sibre Fan]

I imagine the decision of the appeals court in Orly’s Keyes v Obama case will read pretty much the same.

Agreed. And the 11th Circuit Appeals in Orly's appeal in Cook v. Good appeal will likely have the same result.

[paulycy]

Does this mean (IANAL) that we have no means of redress at all if an ineligible POTUS slips through the system?

Does the fact that a lot of people were injured negate the fact that I as an individual was still injured and that I still have rights?

[b4its2late]

Thanks. Sounds like something like this:

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[Sibre Fan]

Does this mean (IANAL) that we have no means of redress at all if an ineligible POTUS slips through the system?

It means that citizens/voters cannot seek redress in the Courts. However, no ineligible POTUS should slip through the system of the general election if we, the voters, are doing our jobs correctly. And, if one does "slip through," then Congress and -- according to all these cases, only Congress -- has the power to address the issue. So our only redress as voters is with Congress -- and the next election.