Posted on 10/25/2008 1:48:50 AM PDT by Dajjal
A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
[snip]
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
[snip
Berg could not be reached for comment last night.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Yes a state AG probably could though I actually meant the U. S. AG. And no, probably no standing to sue the AG. There is something called a Writ of Mandamus which is something ordering a governmental official to perform a purely ministerial function. This is a judgment call so he couldn’t be forced.
I just went brain dead. To which case are you referring?
You are the distraction. get lost.
Thanks.
I was having a blond moment, and I’m not even blond! LOL
“There is NO standing in this case. There never was standing in this case. There never will be standing in this case. This case will never, ever go anywhere. This is an utter waste of our time to hitch a ride with a guy show sued GWB under RICO to “get him” for 9-11. *sigh* This lawsuit is frivolous and the facts are specious. SCOTUS would/will rule 9-0 the same way.”
OK well you tell me how we force presidential candidates to prove that they qualify. Because as things are right now. They simply don’t have to. There is nothing right about that.
You said:
I can absolutely see how it may look like I support Obama. But, just trying to analyze objectively.
I say:
I like you, Klepto!
Berg is already on record (Roger Hedgecock show interview) saying he’ll file with SCOTUS on Monday (Tuesday at the latest).
HAHAHAHAHHAA Ditto. ; ) In those brief moments you think of me just keep two words in mind: “crazy ‘old”
Quite enjoying myself here to be sure. Everyone’s patience with me has been wonderful.
The judge has a duty to explain why Berg was wrong. You obviously don't have experience with corrupt judges who want to protect their allies. Judges routinely ignore the well pleaded arguments and citations of parties when they want a particular result and to hell with the law. I've had personal experience with all of this on numerous occasions.
Was aware of that but was just trying to enlarge the pool of possible parties to the litigation.
Surely there is one country loving, constitutionally savvy person of standing out there who will champion the cause.
It may have been 4 years ago, but I do remember objection being raised on the senate floor when GW Bush was certified in 2004 (I think by Barbara Boxer). Then an investigation ensued by congress.
Although I am a product of the public school system I also remember somewhere in Article 2 of the Constitution (or perhaps 14th amendment?) that an objection to the eligibility of the candidate for president is raised when the electoral college meets (or the HOR if there is no majority vote in the EC). Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of time to read up on this but if anyone does I would be interested to know what he/she finds.
Perhaps its time for us to approach our legislators with this issue and demand they raise objection at the certification should Obama win the EC.
Yes, objection can be raised on Jan. 6th, 2009 in Congress, if Obama wins and does not provide sufficient documentation beforehand.
Obviously the strategy of Obama/Democrats is to keep this issue under the radar.
If Representatives and Senators have subpoena powers in this case, attempts could be made to secure documents if Obama becomes President-elect.
Let me clarify that I agree with you it's not working in this instance. I find it utterly contemptible that the U.S. citizens, We the People, have no standing in this. The DNC might as well run any nationality of Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists for the highest office why we don't have any standing.
I think he needs to go through the appeals court first.
What I find interesting that this court case was ruled that the plaintiff had “no standing” in his arguement. Yet, Hussein flies out to Hawaii to in a very untimely fashion under a false excuse.
Perhaps these suits have forced Hussein’s hand; perhaps that is one of the goals of these suits (especially the ones in PA and HI).
Hussein’s trip to HI means that there is more to this.
Stay tuned.
I have believed for a long time that the judicial system in this country is severely broken. Not just because of this case. Look at all the OJ type cases in California.
Justice in the USA is now for sale to the highest bidder. Is it just a coincidence that this trend began about the same time they stopped swearing in witnesses on the Bible?
Yeah was actually commenting that the State AG just didn’t cross my mind. =)
I must admit to a great deal of surprise that there hasn’t been a lawsuit brought by someone with standing. However, that is one of the reasons I conclude that there is really nothing to this story. *shrug*
You’ll get no argument from me. I have always thought that the standing issue on these matters was improperly decided. It was, in my mind, just to prevent the citizens from suing their Gov’t. Now I followed the rules, of course, and dismissed suits for lack of standing but my attitude is, “so it permits more lawsuits. It IS our government isn’t it?”
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.