Posted on 10/25/2008 7:31:47 AM PDT by NoobRep
So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americasright.com ...
What this is all boiling down to is that Tail gunner Joe was right more than he would have ever believed.
What about the injury to the constitution?
Liberal judge in the tank for Bozo.
Now, I am not saying bozo isn't a citizen, although it is looking that way since he is going out of his way to avoid producing a vault copy of his BC, but I am saying this judge should have ordered Bozo to produce and failing to produce he should have declared him not eligible to run for office, period. Saying a citizen of the US has no standing to bring a suit against a violation of the people's document is BS.
No standing. Whatever happened to a government of the people, by the people?
One they will HAVE to FIX no doubt.
>>>What body or persons are responsible for vetting the basic requirements of the Constitution?
The media. So guess what....
Would you care to put your Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor on the line to insure that We The People do in fact run this country?
I did once and stand ready to do it again.
Gosh, Judge Surrick was so careful about taking his time deliberating on this issue. I wonder what took him so long? And in the end, he comes up with this:
...a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.
Oh, well, it’s about what I expected from the corrupted system in place.
Yes, we all are...it's been going on for years.
Yes, I would. My husband and I have discussed it and it is horrifying what is happening right in front of our eyes and we have decided we would put it on the line to try to fight for what our ancestors fought for.
And that is also a FRIGHTENING proposition. I pray it doesn’t come to that.
“No I am and apparently the judge is saying if he isn’t eligible then don’t vote for him.”
That is the scariest thing I have heard.
A judge saying essentially “So what if he isn’t eligible, don’t vote for him then” is mob rule. A mob rule society that needs no laws, as long as the majority wants it, so be it.
You don’t find anything wrong with that?
Could a STATE do it? Could an attorney representing one of the red states sue for the entire STATE if they felt that they were being forced to have a President that was not legally eligible to be President under the Constitution?
I am asking as a legal question only, because I assume Obama was actually born in Hawaii. But theoretically, there must be SOME other entity that would have a right to sue if a President was not fit to be elected.
Back before 'Civics' Was replaced by "Government" class in school, We The People were at the top of the power structure in this Republic and it was graphically presented thus.
No more, from what I have seen, and the government is taking advantage of that fundamental ignorance foisted upon an unwary citizenry by government schools.
It's just another example of courts doing anything they can to help Goliath at the expense of David, regardless of the merits of David's case.
If courts and legal cases can't redress unconstitutional abuses of power on the part of certain people and groups, a civil war of some sort will eventually occur.
OK, couldn't something like this go to the Supremes? Isn't there any chance that discarding something from the Constitution is literally against the law, and cannot be allowed? It's like saying that now we can run an 18-year-old for President, or even a foreign national. Nothing counts.
Does this mean we Freepers need to bring a Constitutional amendment to our state goevrnments to sue over the fact that representation laws of the commander and chief, should be a state law, that anyone running for President who appears on the ballot must prove proper birth and citizenship, tied the federal law so States rights would be able to sue?
We may need to mobilize at the state levels pass State laws and use them against Washington, and Jusges who thwart our laws.
Great! Now are two of us. When enough Patriots join in our cause, we can drive these socialists rom our shores.
Teach them the lessons their parents won't have time to and that they will not get in schools; especially: take them shooting, let them understand the intrinsic freedoms which are America at a visceral level and the responsibilities which come with them. Teach them to embrace those and America will never die.
I'm not an attorney at all, but I can tell you that - contrary to the spin that the Obama campaign might put on it - the ruling did not say that Berg's claims of Obama's constitutional ineligibility for POTUS were false or disingenuous. The ruling merely dodged a detailed public examination of Obama's credentials or lack thereof, which would have occurred if the suit were allowed to proceed.
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.