[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.

[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:

[wintertime]

The Marxist-fascists ( AKA Democratic Party) found a loophole and flew a military transport right through it...And...We have no standing to question it or remedy it.
The Republicans are spineless, and our media ( both Marxist and conservative) will not touch it.

Silverleaf (post #7) is right, but no one has the testosterone level to do anything about it.

Fundamentally, only an honest people of good will can government themselves. No amount of laws or clauses can corral evil. Our Constitution could be legally airtight, and the length of the IRS, but evil people **will** always find a way to scam the system. We now live in a nation where evil is overwhelming the good.

By the way, the 2000 Florida recount was the turning point for me. I realized that the Democrats were Marxists and would do **anything** ( literally) to obtain and hold power. From that point on, I will not have a Marxist ( AKA Democrat) for a friend. They are too evil and/or too stupid.