Lawsuit over McCain citizenship should be tossed, GOP lawyers say

Lawyers for John McCain and the state and national Republican Party on Thursday asked a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the candidate's place on California's Nov. 4 ballot.

Markham Robinson of Vacaville, chairman-elect of California's American Independent Party, sued McCain, the GOP and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen on Aug. 11, arguing the presidential candidate's birth 72 years ago today in the Panama Canal Zone means he's not a "natural-born citizen" — a Constitutional requirement to be president.

But lawyers for the GOP and McCain wrote Thursday that Robinson lacks standing to sue and is asking the courts to tread where the Constitution forbids.

Robinson hasn't shown McCain's candidacy causes him any harm, they said: He's neither a presidential candidate himself nor authorized to sue on behalf of his party or party nominee Alan Keyes, and stripping McCain from the ballot won't much improve the party's or Keyes' chances of winning.

If McCain were tossed, the GOP presumably would put up someone else in his place, they wrote. And even without a Republican in the race, they added, "Ambassador Keyes still would have to defeat Senator Obama in the state's general election."

Keyes ran against Obama for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004 after Republicans drafted Keyes as a last-minute replacement for their initial nominee, Jack Ryan, who withdrew amid a sex scandal. Obama won the election with 70 percent of the vote to Keyes' 27 percent.

If that race is any guide, the GOP's lawyers dryly noted Thursday, Keyes' probability of beating Obama for president in California "seems, at best, speculative."

Anyhow, they argued, the Constitution says issues of presidential eligibility are to be decided by voters and the Electoral College and not the courts — a matter of separation of powers among the government's branches. And federal courts lack jurisdiction and cause to direct Bowen to exceed her statutory powers by questioning a party nominee's eligibility.

Robinson must file an opposing brief by Sept. 4, and U.S. District Judge William Alsup will consider the case Sept. 11.

The lawyers' brief doesn't discuss McCain's citizenship status. Federal law says anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone after Feb. 26, 1904, as a child of U.S. citizens is declared to be a U.S. citizen himself or herself. Some have questioned, however, whether this makes McCain a "natural-born citizen," a term the Constitution doesn't define any further; the federal law took effect about one year after McCain's birth, and doesn't say the person's citizenship was considered to have been acquired at birth.

McCain supporters have pointed to a 1790 law that provided that children of U.S. citizens born abroad "shall be considered as natural born citizens." Though no longer in effect, that law indicates what the founding fathers were thinking when the Constitution was drafted, those supporters contend.

The American Independents, a conservative party recently plagued by factional infighting, had 331,619 members as of May 19, comprising just over 2 percent of the state's registered voters. But there's anecdotal evidence that some voters join the party by mistake, believing they're registering as nonpartisan or "decline-to-state" voters.

Earlier, I believe you assented to the idea that a court will stop a fraud that is underway in order to prevent future damages. Those damages, I also believe, do not have to be exactly enumerated when they haven’t even occurred yet.

If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?

In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation. Yet you persist.

I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.

What are your qualifications to comment as you have been? And BTW, are you a supporter of Hussein?

Earlier, I believe you assented to the idea that a court will stop a fraud that is underway in order to prevent future damages.

The problem is that no damages have been identified. Berg has not shown any standing because he hasn't shown where he himself is suffering injury by Obama's candidacy. He has to show how exactly Obama's running has caused him harm. And it has to be concrete; he can't say cite some sort of hypothetical, like it's damaging his faith in the electoral process.

If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?

I'm sure it will be. To date the judge has just ruled on the immediate request and has denied the injunction. That in itself is not a good sign because it shows that the judge is not convinced that Berg is suffering any immediate harm by Obama's actions. The rest of the case is in the preliminary phases.

In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation.

Then by all means persist. Have at it. What's one more frivilous lawsuit in the court system? But don't blame me for the way the legal system works.

I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.

Your confidence in your admitted lack of knowledge is impressive, to say the least. No doubt when Berg's suit gets tossed, or this suit against McCain gets tossed, you will chalk it up to a corrupt judge and a biased court. And there is nothing that I or anyone else will ever be able to do to convince you otherwise.

The judge has not “denied the injunction”, because that is what the entire suit is about—obtaining an injunction against Obama’s candidacy. The judge HAS denied a temporary restraining order.

Berg’s specific standing relates to his being a member of the Democrat party, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Did you even read his complaint? I suspect not. He does, in fact, mention specific damages in the complaint, which I pointed out earlier. You seem to have trouble tracking and/or processing facts.

Unless you try to convince me that you’re a lawyer(or otherwise qualified to pontificate as you have), I’ll just ignore your impertinence.

Unless you try to convince me that you’re a lawyer(or otherwise qualified to pontificate as you have), I’ll just ignore your impertinence.

If our discussion has shown me anything it's that I'm not likely to change your mind on any subject at all, much less one you admit to knowing nothing about. I'll just sit back and let the legal system do it's work on both Berg and Robinson's frivilous suits. You be sure and ping me and let me know how mad you are that a likely Democratic judge and a corrupt court screwed Berg when they toss out his case.

I’ve already pointed out several points on which you’re wrong, i.e., your saying that the “injunction” was denied, and that Berg hasn’t addressed damages, etc.

You accuse me of being unreasonably obstinate, but despite my showing where you’ve been wrong on several points, you’re the one who won’t be persuaded by reason.

All I admitted to was not being a lawyer, not that I “know nothing about” of what I write. And I maintain that I know more about these matters than you do. You won’t even answer simple questions, like whether or not you read the complaint, whether or not you have legal training, etc.

And if Berg’s suit IS thrown out, does that by necessity mean that Berg has no standing, or will it be the first time in history that a liberal Democrat judge and/or corrupt court ever tossed a suit for political reasons?

I’ve already pointed out several points on which you’re wrong, i.e., your saying that the “injunction” was denied, and that Berg hasn’t addressed damages, etc.

Restraining Order - An order in the nature of an injunction which may issue upon filing of an application for an injunction forbidding the defendant from doing the threatened act until a hearing on the application can be had.

See? Your mind is made up already. Berg is right, and if it get's thrown out then it's due to a corrupt system rather than an headline-chasing attorney with a bogus case. And there is nothing that I or anyone else could ever do to convince you otherwise. So by all means follow these two suits. Hell, file one of your own. Be sure and let me know how if comes out.

I’ve already pointed out several points on which you’re wrong, i.e., your saying that the “injunction” was denied, and that Berg hasn’t addressed damages, etc.

A restraining order may be “in the nature” of an injunction, but the TRO which was denied in Berg v. Obama/DNC/FEC isn’t the same animal as the overall injunction which is the main objective of the Berg case, and which has not been denied because the suit is proceeding. I’m willing to believe that what you were referring to was the TRO.

Yes, I happen to believe Berg is right, despite his being a “9/11 truther” and otherwise my enemy re: Bush v. Gore 2000...but because I not only read his entire complaint, and endless supporting arguments in this forum and elsewhere, as well as believe Hussein does NOT meet the eligibility criteria to be POTUS, I insist that he has a case.

Hussein’s claims to intact natural born citizenship are highly dubious, and all of his words, actions, and close associations over the years identify someone whose loyalty to the U.S. is at least divided, if not non-existent.

I also happen to think you may be right that the suit could in some way be derailed, but not because of Berg’s motives, standing, etc.; I think the powers that be will either find a way to bamboozle key people into accepting a phony or illicitly-produced Hussein birth certificate, and/or that pressure will be brought to bear on certain people so as to avoid every major city in the U.S. being set ablaze and looted by rampaging “diversity” so that Hussein can be our first hip-hop President.

Of course. But I think he has standing, therefore I think the case will go forward.

That is, until “diversity” and the reluctance to see every major U.S. city inflames trump the silly Constitutional notion that POTUS should have undivided national loyalites and uninterrupted, exclusive natural-born citizenship.

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.