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]

It is my understanding that There is evidence that Berg has that is still sealed by a court’s decision.

This is not the case that was sealed. That case was Berg's FCA Case in DC. However, that case has been unsealed.

[thecraw]

No but you get the point. I feel this way whenever my team's opponent "gets away with" a penalty the hurries up to snap the ball before the challenge flag can get thrown.

Same concept...

[El Gato]

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

Ordinary citizens, and most not so ordinary ones, have no standing to have the courts enforce the Constitution. Unless they suffer "injury" different from that of all other citizens.

If no one can eforce it, the Constitution is dead. It'll be deader yet when the Senate passes some kind of health care reform and then the "offending" provisions of the House bill are put back in in conferance, and then passed in the Senate by 51 votes or 50 votes plus Biden's tie breaker.

[El Gato]

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

Assuming there is an honest election in 2012. After all if no one can sue to enforce Article I section 1 clause 5, why would they be able to sue to enforce the preceeding four clauses and the XIIth, XXth and XXIInd amendments? Particularly first clause of the XXth amendment.

No particularized "injury" would occur if those Constitutional provisions were violated, would they?

[El Gato]

Pelosi is evil, but she couldn’t be as destructive in the White House as Obama has been.

She and Dingy Harry are Barry's partners in that destruction.

[classified]

It’s probably checkmate....Both have each other by the balls so the speak. Hillary or Bill would not used that option of exposing Obama, unless he became the aggressor and showed signs of going to expose her. I think the Clintons are waiting for Obama to hang himself so the speak. They certainly would not come to his aid if there was evidence of him imploding. They no doubt would step aside,get out of the way and hope that they would not be caught up in it.

[jamese777]

Impeachment is our remedy and I know that’s not going to fly, hence my suggestion of getting a huge sum of money, promising Pelosi the oval office and keep throwing stacks of hundreds on her desk until her price is met.

Pelosi is evil, but she couldn’t be as destructive in the White House as Obama has been.

---

Pelosi? Aren’t you forgetting about Joe Biden? He becomes President if Obama was to be removed.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ping to a ruling on Berg v. Obama.

[plenipotentiary]

ANYONE HAS STANDING or as they put it back then, subject matter jurisdiction.

4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.

(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.

(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.

5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.

(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.

(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.

6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.

(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.

(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.

7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html

[The Comedian]

So what would be your answer if there were no questions about Obama’s eligibility?

I assume you meant to ask "What would your question be if there were no questions about Obama's eligibility?"

If he hadn't written, or rather Bill Ayers hadn't written in his autobiography that Barack Sr. was a British citizen, therefore Barry Jr simply can't be a natural born US citizen, my question would be the following:

Why have you sealed all of your educational records, and who paid your university tuition?

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

[Mr. Blonde]

The way I understood your post, these court cases are the answer to having a president doing things you don’t like.

My question is what would be your suggestion if there were no questions about his eligibility. How would you then suggest to deal with a president you don’t like?

[The Comedian]

The way I understood your post, these court cases are the answer to having a president doing things you don’t like.

Then you totally misunderstood my post. The issue is one of frustration with the complete and utter failure of a series of judges to take personal responsibility for defending the Constitution in favor of doing nothing while sitting there, pantsless beneath that robe, demanding forced respect (and income) from the people who "have no standing". No matter...

My question is what would be your suggestion if there were no questions about his eligibility. How would you then suggest to deal with a president you don’t like?

I don't know. "Not liking a president" has never entered into my experience, since I've never met one, and I would consider my dislike an irrelevant motivation if I experienced it.

Dealing with a President who is obviously hostile toward American freedom, a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and in place due to vast fraud resulting in a probable coup is a first in American history.

I would look to history for clues as to how to proceed when a tyrant with foreign alliance and loyalty has illegally seized power and is in process of committing a series of treasonous acts which will destroy the country he is presiding over.

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

[plenipotentiary]

Impeachment is for legally elected Presidents, which Obama ISN’T.

[Mr. Blonde]

Either way, the courts don’t have the power to remove someone in the office of the president. They cannot grant a remedy. That is required for them to hear a case. Sort of a chicken or the egg situation. Congress or the electoral process is how to handle this.

[Dajjal]

obumpa