And to your question - Judge Surrick states:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
Apparently, Judge Surrick does not believe that there are any laws that exist to establish procedures that protect voters from impostor citizens for running for President.
Or any other Office for that matter. This could also clear the way for illegal aliens or felons to run for Representative and Senator, should the Party decide to let them.
The judge is right
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff.”
This ‘judge’ is wrong.
He saying I have no right to ‘Police’ the constitution.
However, since it is MY constitution I have every right to police it!
In fact ‘the people’ have a duty to police it — unless they wish to lose it!
His statement implies that it takes some ‘judicial power’(like him) to confer my constitutional rights — it doesn’t!
The Judge can say he hasn’t the authority, under law, to enforce Berg’s claim (as it is written) but don’t tell me or Berg or any other American citizen that they have no standing to ‘police’ the constitution.
... And considering the fact that elected and unelected ‘officials’, such as judges, can become corrupt (being human)I would like to know exactly who — if not ‘the people’ — would ‘police’ the constitution, under such extraordinary circumstances?
Maybe those of us who still believe that the constitution belongs to the people need to remove from power those that are trying so hard to take it out of our hands.
Obama is not just an ordinary citizen, he is also a united states senator.
Obama is an elected official — and a PROFESSOR OF LAW — who should be held to an even greater standard than an ordinary citizen, yet he plays legal games with the court and thumbs his nose at the very people who have voted for him... deceiving them, by posting a fake COLB on a website.
The judge is saying no one has been damaged — yet.
I can understand this as a point of law.
But the judge goes beyond the above saying it is ‘frivolous’ and ‘unworthy of discussion’.
How is a legitimate concern for our constitution — brought about by the actions of an elected official (Obama) — ‘frivolous’ and ‘unworthy of discussion’?
There is circumstantial evidence that Obama is attempting to circumvent the constitution yet concerned citizens are told by this judge that their concerns are ‘frivolous’ and ‘unworthy of discussion’.
I think not!
STE=Q