Not that I agree at all with the FEC, but standing is quite an important element of a lawsuit, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
On this issue “Rules of Civil Procedure” be dammed. Have him produce the Birth Certificate and get it over with. Forget the “Procedures” and prove to the American people, of which 50% want to know, that he is a citizen. Seems that democrats really don’t care. If they don’t care then anyone in the world can be our President. How about Chaves, or Castro?
So who WOULD have standing for a complaint like this? It seems like the Constitution itself will bear the greatest injury, but lately the Constitution has been having trouble finding a good attorney.
Who would have standing?
That is my concern. I haven’t seen the case law, I’m not a lawyer BTW, but a lawyer who looked at it told me Berg doesn’t have standing. That brings up the question about why the court didn’t throw it out on that basis. I’m hoping the delay in the court doing anything is positive for Berg.
The Obama train has come close to running off the track a number of times. I’ve got my fingers crossed but I’m not holding my breath. I am trying to get people out to vote. That’s the real showdown.
So WHO (We the American people?) have standing when it comes to that WE are "hiring" our President, hmmm???
If the plaintiff doesn’t have standing as a voting citizen, and the FEC doesn’t have standing, then who does? Somebody HAS to have standing for this constitutional issue. I think Obama would argue that no person or government body has standing so that his citizenship can’t be questioned.
True. But under what bizarre theory of "standind" does ANY US citizen not have standing to challenge the legal qualification of a candidate for presidency.
I'm not a lawyer (though I am the Pro Se Defendant from Hell with plenty of battle scars to prove it). But as I understand it, to have standing you have to show that you have a direct interest in the matter before the court, and that you stand to suffer damages.
I would argue that any US citizen meets that standard. Clearly, having a president in office who is not Constitutionally qualified damages every US citizen.
That said, I am not taking a position here on whether or not Obama is, in fact, a natural-born US citizen (although I do have my suspicions).
the Constitution does not give standing to a private citizen? I don’t know, just asking!
So who WOULD have standing? ACORN? NOBODY? If Sarkozy decided he's like to be simultaneously President of France and the US, WHO would "have standing" to challenge that?
You lawyers can't explain anything.
You raise an interesting point. Who, then, would have standing for such a challenge, and when could the challenge be raised? Do we have to wait until he has won the election before a voter has standing to challenge Obama's meeting Constitutional requirements for the office?
If so, then what would the relief be? President Biden?
Agreed ... but it's not clear to me why the FEC would be submitting a filing about Berg's standing. Unless Berg has named them, too?
Yes, but I believe Berg already has won the “Standing” issue. I was referring to Obama and his cohorts and their red herring defense tactics.
As Dean Wormer famously said: “Out with it, boy”
Not that I agree at all with the FEC, but standing is quite an important element of a lawsuit, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Standing, schmanding - just file a class action lawsuit on behalf of every American citizen!
</irony>
Sounds to me like any citizen would have standing, given that you need to be qualified to be a candidate.