Virginia Attorney General outlines birther legal challenge (constitutional eligibility)

The hill ^ | March 15, 2010 | Eric Zimmermann

[opentalk]

Audio has surfaced of Virginia Attorney General outlining a legal strategy to challenge President Obama's citizenship.

In the recording, released by a liberal blog, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli describes how someone could gain the legal standing to mount a successful lawsuit.

"It will get tested in my view when someone--when [Obama] signs a law, and someone is convicted of violating it and one of their defenses will be it is not a law because someone qualified to be President didn’t sign it," Cuccinelli says.

Cuccinelli even says it's "possible" that he could challenge Obama's citizenship in court if Virginia were to sue the federal government.

The kicker comes when Cuccinelli says he thinks it's possible Obama may have been born in Kenya.

"Someone's going to have to come forward with nailed down testimotny that he was born in 'place b,' wherever that is. You know the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility," he says.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Perhaps we aren’t U.S. Citizens, but Sovereigns as the Founders said.

The ramifications of revealing that would scare any Fed senseless.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks for the Ping!

Wouldn't this mean that ANY citizen who refuses to buy insurance under bammies health scam and gets prosecuted for it, wouldn't they automatically have standing to challenge the won and his legitimacy?

[Tex-Con-Man]

Prepare yourself for him to start backtracking on the birther statements.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

Well called :-(

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86875-cuccinelli-backs-off-birther-statements

Is there something in the water that’s been turning Republicans (even ex-marine judges) into bedwetting liberal-sucking fags recently?

[Smokeyblue]

Bump

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks hennie pennie.

[urtax$@work]

cha-cha-cha- chi-nelli , the amazing backtacking politico.

seriously though.........

.....In the recording, released by a liberal blog ......,

That blog did a good job in keeping the lid nailed on the subject

[American Constitutionalist]

All this proves is that the birth certificate issue is not “ fringe talk “ ... since the AG of Virgina is taking it on, and the state of Arizona is trying to get a law passed is evidence that this is not some fringe movement.
Those who want to keep this hidden are in the fringe, always has.

[American Constitutionalist]

By the mere fact that people pay taxes to the Federal government gives them standing... whether the Federal government realizes it or not, by their own admission and demanding tax payers to pay taxes is proof that we have standing.
No taxation without representation right ?

[Uncle Chip]

I love the Rahm on a stick — that’s priceless.

[kyright]

Two important things—

First, it doesn’t matter if Obama was born on the steps of the White House. His father was never a US citizen. Someone needs to explain the Constitution and citizenship to Cuccinelli. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2468791/posts

Second, remember the Kerchner case. If everyone is injured “equally” no one has standing, because their injury isn’t “particularized.” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

A quote from the article:
“The Court stated: “[W]hile Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens. . . .” The Court went on to state: “In the present case, assuming as the Court must that Plaintiffs’ allegations are true for the purposes of deciding this jurisdiction motion, the injury, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs is one that would be shared by all the American people,” that “the alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents,” that the “harm is equally applicable to all American citizens….” The Court said that because the type of injury that plaintiffs allegedly suffered is also suffered by “all United States citizens,” “all the American people,” “all United States residents,” the plaintiffs do not have standing. In other words, the Court said that if one is injured and suffers alone, one has standing. But if one is injured and suffers along with “all” the rest of the American “citizens,” “people,” or “residents,” one does not have standing.”