Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: RobinMasters
A lower court dismissed the action, claiming the plaintiffs lack "standing" to make a claim about an alleged violation of the Constitution – meaning they weren't personally "injured" by the act.

BS. Every American has standing and voters have a personal interest. Our vote is an intimate, personal act. In our past, some groups were denied the right to vote. Were they injured by that denial? Of course.

If obama is not eligible, has our right to vote not been denied by fraud? Our vote has been invalidated, our right to vote has been infringed and we have all been personally injured by those who have perverted the process and injured by the results.

12 posted on 07/08/2010 8:14:51 PM PDT by GBA (Resistance is Constitutional!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GBA
Every American has standing and voters have a personal interest.

Back of the bus, you impudent serf!

In our past, some groups were denied the right to vote. Were they injured by that denial?

I would take exception to this. Nobody is injured by a limited franchise as long as the government itself is limited as in the original intent of the Founders. It's only when you make government into a big lottery where everybody gets a ticket by just "being here" and the winners are picked by you-know-who that disenfranchisement entails injury.

13 posted on 07/08/2010 8:24:41 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: GBA

“BS. Every American has standing...”

Actually, legally, if every American suffers damage, then no American has standing. You just explained why, under the law, the case was frivolous.

From the decision

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens....

...The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people...We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21727356/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-41-10-20-2009-41-RECAP-OPINION-FILED-Signed-by-Judge-Jerome-B-Simandle-on-10-20-09-js-Entered-10-21-2009-gov-uscourt


28 posted on 07/09/2010 4:16:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson