Posted on 08/22/2008 9:51:22 AM PDT by Diamond
As you point out, it effects everyone equally. Actually, that's individual and particularized; it is a "general interest common to all members of the public," and that vague type harm--that Constitution isn't being followed--is insufficient to confer standing. As I pointed out, the Court's decision in Lance addresses this very issue:
"[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every other citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy."
So I don’t get your argument, especially about the establishment clause.
Standing under the establishment clause, for whatever reason, is different. You can have standing to challenge governmental actions under the establishment clause simply be virtue of being a taxpayer. Taxpayer standing allows a plaintiff with only a generalized harm to proceed. This is the type of standing you're pushing for here, but the Court's been very clear that this type of standing doesn't fly outside establishment clause cases.
For some reason you non-lawyers want to address the issue of standing with him like he is a law student.
Someone here is a non-lawyer? Who's that? As far as Mr. Berg goes, it seems that he needs a refresher course on Art. III cases and controversies.
I’m a bit confused
Indeed. Here is a link to Lance. It is a short opinion; only five or six pages. Read it and tell me how Berg has standing, taking particular note of the discussion of Ex parte Levitt.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf
Oops. Should read: "that's not individual and particularized. . ."
Yes, when the skeletons come out, the nation needs to know. It is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. Unfortunately, the truth about Mr. Obama’s Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship has not been brought out on the floor, not to mention the fraudulent Certificate of Live Birth. Maybe, perhaps, maybe, President Clinton will have the guts to say it! “Barack, the American people need to know that you have a potentially well substantiated lawsuit against you alleging that you are not qualified to be President of the United States!”
What part of “this is not a government action” do you not understand? And YOU are the non-lawyer I’m talking about.
This restraining order is not to restrain actions of the government. It is to restrain the Democratic Party.
That doesn't have anything to do with it. At least in this situation, it's completely irrelevant who he is suing as to whether the plaintiff has standing to bring the action. The question, rather, is whether the injury is indivdiual and particularized or whether is it a general injury shared by the public.
And YOU are the non-lawyer I’m talking about.
Yeah, this old antitrust lawyer I guess just doesn't have a clue. It's not like I litigated--and won--an Article III and prudential standing case in the last year or anything.
Well I do apologize for my assumption. Most who bellow about law aren’t lawyers.
I still don’t agree with you about standing though. I believe as a Democrat he has standing for the reason stated in the complaint. (Although I suspect that complaint was written for public consumption and not as much for the court).
If the Democrats have nominated a Constitutionally unqualified candidate then in essence his vote would be a nullity and would therefore deprive him of his right to vote. I believe a constructive denial of that right to vote would indeed give him standing to challenge his own party on their nominee.
I really don’t like his complaint because it cites internet rumor and wikipedia among other things. I would like to see his exhibits if he has any.
I again didn’t mean to come off rudely.
No problem; I know how we all get on here. I'm sure this issue will be fully briefed and addressed by the Court before it's all said and done, so we'll see how it turns out.
bttt
NO. the question is, was he born a citizen. you do NOT have to be born IN the us to be a us citizen. if you are born outside of the us, there are conditions that only one of your parents need to meet to make you a citizen.”
Go back and read the lawsuit.
At the time of Nobama’s birth, the laws of the USA said that the mother had to be a USA citizen at least 19 years of age, and had lived in the USA for the prior 5 years.
Stanley Ann was 18 when she had Nobama. He’s NOT a naturalized citizen....
If the law has been reworded since, it is not retroactive.
Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia
Obama would only lose his citizenship if he renounced it as an adult. A minor does not lose citizenship because his/her parent moves to another country and becomes a citizen.”
Soooo..Nobama kept his Kenyan citizenship intact??? Looks like he was born there.
The TRO was denied and there may be some news on the timetable later today”
The TRO needs to have all parties served first. It was a technical denial, but now that all 3 parties finally have been served- took over 2 weeks to get to Nobama (was he ducking service), now it can go forward. Berg is asking for expediting and for a “Master”.
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person”
go back and read the citizenship laws. there is NOTHING in regard to being 19 years old. the 5 years do NOT have to be consecutive, although 2 of them do have to be after thhe 14th birthday.
If the Democrats have nominated a Constitutionally unqualified candidate then in essence his vote would be a nullity and would therefore deprive him of his right to vote. I believe a constructive denial of that right to vote would indeed give him standing to challenge his own party on their nominee.
***Sounds about right to me.
I haven't seen any evidence that Obama was born outside the U.S. Have you?
My brother was born in Italy to my parents who were in the US military. Upon his majority (his 18th birthday) the Italian Army called him up for duty. My brother had to declare feilty to the USA and file paperwork to that effect with the Italian government through the US government or he was subject to Italian enlistment requirements.
Berg is stating that Obama was an Indonesian citizen and as such was supposed to, upon his majority, declare feilty to the USA. He did not do this... paperwork to that effect was not done. Therefore, Barack Obama is still an Indoneasian citizen and NOT a citizen of the USA.
Since Obama cannot “prove” citizenship to the USA, with a bona-fide papertrail, and he declared that he was a citizen of Kenya on Columbia University enrollment papers, there is reasonable doubt as to his real citizenship that the courts need to determine.
Thanks for the helpful post—it helps understand the procedures about declaring and proving citizenship better. I had no idea that what happened to your brother ‘could’ happen.
I can’t wait to see how this plays out.
When Baracks mother married Lolo Soetoro, and Lolo adopted Barack, she and Barack became an Indonesian citizens. It would be interesting to find out what passport they re-entered the USA when Barack was 11 years old back in 1972.
Seems there’s an easy enough way to prove his U.S. citizenship: provide legal documentation stating as much. Provide it to the court. End of case.
Since he has not done this, and since he refuses to do it and is, instead, filing motions to dismiss, the only question I have is, “what’s he trying to hide?”
I can prove my citizenship easily enough: I have a valid, sealed and signed Birth Certificate from the state of California. Why can’t Barack just do the same?
He’s hiding something and that something may ultimately may disqualify him from holding public office.
If he’s successful in being elected - even if ineligible - he will be successful in perpetrating the biggest scam on the American people since Social Security.
This guy is a fraud and needs to be exposed.
Rush IS talking about it, and so is all of America.
Rush is talking about it today?
What is he saying?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.