Get out and vote.
That’s all I have to say.
Kind of funny when “We the People” have no standing to demand that a candidate for the President of the United States actually meets the constitutional requirements to do so.
The Constitution is “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
I can understand the judge deciding that Berg did not have standing but “patently untrue”? Hardly. He still hasn’t provided a genuine birth certificate.
(( ping ))
Obviously, the Obama dirt machine has something on Surrick.
Anyway, Berg can now appeal.
From the beginning, this issue was something that only (some) members of the Supreme Court would have the guts to fairly examine. It’s just a shame this scumbag Surrick was able to delay things for so long.
Same as it ever was....
Like I have said before....we are in the Twilight Zone. But the episode doesn’t end.
PING!
Like I’ve been saying . . .
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.
No standing, the Democrat judges way of choice for telling you to take a hike, this is our liberal country and we are going to rule it the way we want.
This is still a political issue. Obama’s acting very guilty the way he’s stonewalling in court. A vigilant citizen does not rely on courts alone.
Linking this to the Birth Certificate Link Thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2114092/posts?page=1
“...the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.”
Apparently, this judge would rather wait until the Constitution is completely destroyed before “allegations of harm” are more concrete.
What a maroon.
Evidently, “there is no controlling legal authority” that enforces the Constitution in this nation anymore....if there ever was one.
On what conditions can a judge have this type of ruling? It seems that anything that is going to rock the proverbial boat such as suits against being taxed the ruling is alway that it is frivolous.
The Fix is in.
So no person in this country has any right to demand that a candidate for president prove he or she is eligible to be president?
Or do we just need to find the magic password to use upon the court? Open Sesame?
What is to prevent a person who is 30 years of age from running for president as a democrat if the party and the FEC allows it? Who is in charge of determining eligibility?
As Algore said during his fund-raising scandal, there appears to be “no controlling legal authority.” Is this true in this present case?