This bogus lawsuit against McCain should be tossed for the same reason that the suit against Obama in Philadelphia should be tossed. In neither case does the plaintiff have any standing to sue. And I’d like to see the judge in both instances make the plaintiffs pay compensation for the costs.
In neither case does the plaintiff have any standing to sue.
***Then who would have standing? This is a constitutional issue, going to whether a person is fraudulently representing his eligibility to be president, in Obama’s case. In McCain’s case it was probably expected to see this kind of nonsense because he went through it in 2000 & got that “sense of the senate” in his favor...
markomalley put to rest:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2065437/posts?page=52#52
8 U.S.C. § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Please note subparagraph b.
No “standing” is also a silly basis for trying to have it thrown out. Kevmo’s right—if ANY given citizen can’t be said to suffer damage by having an ineligible POTUS, then who the hell WOULD be said to have standing?
As I see it—not being a lawyer myself or anything, just having listened to them debate law every day for 8 years or so—a case like this and Berg v. Obama is plainly best packaged as a CLASS ACTION on behalf of the electorate.