“...By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”
If I'm interpreting this correctly, Judge Surrick’s opinion is that if Obama is in fact constitutionally ineligible to hold office of POTUS, then “harm” to voters can only become a reality ONCE HE IS IN OFFICE.
Therefore, no harm exists at this time to voters.
That's almost analogous to stating that “attempted murder” is not a crime, because no one was actually murdered.
This is code for "Berg is absolutely right, but I don't want to apply the law." Federal Judges often use this language to simply ignore the constitution and the law.
This case will end up in the USSC.
I think there is going to be another revolution if Obama is elected and it is demonstrated he is not eligible.
Well, there’s a shocker.
Always suspected that Berg’s suit was a set-up designed to create a precedent in favor of Obama. It was clear to us in the legal profession that he was going to lose on the standing issue from the beginning.
The fix is in.
f - - k.
If we don’t have standing to question the eligiblity of a candidate, then WHO does? No one?
This country is finished, done for.
I am just sick.
The Marxist takeover of the USA is now complete UNLESS WE STOP IT AT THE BALLOT BOX!!!
VOTE VOTE VOTE
We must be more powerful than Acorn!!!
(Intentionally?) sloppy wording. Surrick agreed with the "no standing" argument. He didn't appear to rule on the merits of the citizenship allegations themselves.
IOW, the judge basically ruled that no citizen or group of citizens has the legal right to question the qualifications of a U.S. presidential candidate. It's a "Just WHO do you think you are?" ruling.
I've asked this before, and I haven't seen the answer yet: Who does have standing for such a complaint?
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.
Time to play the tape of Grandma saying she saw the baby being born in K E N Y A.
How come I suspect that we’re dealing with a CLINTON-APPOINTED judge here?
Here’s my own pet theory.
o O’s biological father was indeed Frank Marshall Davis.
o However, a man—a black man and a prominent communist—who impregnated a 17 year old—a white 17 year old no less—within the borders of the US would have risked prison as a statutory rapist. I have no doubt that the authorities of the day would have relished the opportunity to put Davis away for what would have been regarded as a scandalous combination of statutory rape and miscegenation. This was 1961.
o Somehow, then, BO Sr. was brought into the picture, perhaps specifically to present a Kenyan staging for the conception and/or birth.
o BO Sr. stuck around long enough to get whatever quid pro quo and to confer his name upon infant BO Jr. Whether the bun popped out of the oven in Kenya or Hawaii remains in question. A birth in Kenya actually makes sense, since it would have further forestalled prosecutory interest in the impregnation of a 17-year-old.
o Davis, as we know, returned as a father figure in O’s life thanks to the efforts of Dunham’s parents. Why?
The conjunction of BO Sr., Dunham’s parents and Davis would seem to be the Rosetta Stone of The Messiah’s ancestry.
Who are the Dunhams?
We need to go after Soros. He is a big, big problem along with whoever the powers that be are.
This is total BS! I am absolutely disgusted. The fix is in folks, if we weren’t sure of it before we can be now.
This election is our last illusion of having any power whatsoever.
If this part of the Constitution is irrelevant, than which other parts are irrelevant too? How do we know what is still valid and what isn’t?