Posted on 02/12/2009 10:19:49 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
That is why judges toss out certain cases -- because the plaintiffs weren't able to show they suffered concrete harm. That was the circumstance when an Internet-fueled rumor sparked several lawsuits seeking to bar Honolulu-born Barack Obama from the presidency because the plaintiffs doubted he was, as the Constitution requires, "a natural-born citizen."
In dismissing one such suit, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, of federal district court in Philadelphia, said an aim of the standing doctrine is to prevent courts from deciding questions "where the harm is too vague." He observed that a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."
Judge Surrick acknowledged that "standing can be a difficult concept for lawyers and nonlawyers alike." Nonetheless, he wrote, "standing has been a consistent barrier to lower courts hearing generalized, undifferentiated claims by voters and citizens."
Sometimes, the issues raised are serious. In 1974, for instance, the Supreme Court rejected a suit the Reservists Committee to Stop the War filed to expel members of Congress from the military reserves. The group alleged that the lawmakers were violating a constitutional provision barring senators and representatives from "holding any Office under the United States." By serving in the reserves, the group said, members of Congress were answerable to President Richard Nixon and therefore couldn't act as independent members of the legislative branch.
Once again, standing was the obstacle. The allegation was "simply a matter of speculation," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, but even if true, only affected "the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional government, and that is an abstract injury."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Bookmarked. Thanks.
I suppose if the president in question were a Republican, the information would just have been leaked, very early in the process.
Then what should be the remedy for such issues? If you assume that Mr. Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of POTUS, who should remove him? Is it an unenforceable requirement? Do votes trump the Constitution?
So in other words “ ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”. Take to the streets with pitchfork and torch, tell Chuck You Schumer that America DOES CARE.
I have been saying this since last year, but it’s been falling on deaf ears.
I even brought up Jones v. Bush.
I have asked the question a few times before, but have been totally ignored. Can ANYBODY answer this question?
There have been many people here say that Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting these lawsuits. I have seen NO evidence that he has spent a penny. In none of the articles I have read is a lawyer for Obama mentioned. In EVERY case, the only lawyer mentioned is the one bringing the case before the court and asking for the case to go forward. In every case, they failed (possibly for the reasons mentioned in this article).
Where is there ANY independent documentation that shows Obama has spent any money on this?
Meanwhile, the entire Democrat congress and president are giving money away to their cronies at the working stiff's expense. They are stealing our money. Do I have standing to sue? The courts are a joke. We need a Pinochete to clean out the B@$t@rd$.
” Do votes trump the Constitution? “
Judges and Justices routinely ‘trump the Constitution’ without breaking a sweat....
(See also: “McCain-Feingold”)
Seems to me a lot of people can prove “concrete harm” from Obama being president.
I somewhat disagree. While I agree that it’s a waste of time right now, if/when any policies he signs cause harm (physical and/or financial), then the courts will be much more likely to say that someone has standing. For example, stopping off-shore drilling could cause harm to a company involved in such livelihood. If so, they could claim they were harmed because Barry Obama has stopped it. If they can show they have standing in a civil case, that can compel a defendent to prove that they have the right to such action and that the action was not fraudulent.
Judge Surrick said this? Or the fax he received from Chicago had that written out for him?
Obama worked at Sidley & Austin. Bill Ayer's father had a prominent friend with Sidley & Austin too.
Small world.
If I paid taxes.
Every time there is one of these threads, someone says this.
But he has produced the documentation.
What is generalized or undifferentiated about asking that Obama prove he is a natural born citizen? This is a specific person, and the charges are very specific as well. And it certainly does harm to citizens if an inelligible liar becomes Commander in Chief.
He has been "vetted"? By whom? Nobody has vetted his records or his birth certificate that I have heard of. Neither the DNC, nor the secretaries of state, nor the news media have done one damned thing to try to prove or disprove these very well founded suspicions. The media has completely ignored his entire history and life records. Completely.
In fact, the odds are pretty good that Obama is not an American citizen AT ALL. Not 100%, certainly, but IMHO much better than 50-50 that he was born a British subject, relinquished the American citizenship he probably didn't have to become an Indonesian citizen, and never took any steps to apply for American citizenship when he came of age or failed to register for the draft.
Uh, no, he hasn’t. A couple of liberal web sites have posted a poor image of the short-form COLB which is almost certainly a forgery, and which proves nothing since non-citizens were able to get COLBs in Hawaii at that time.
No he hasn’t.
“But he has produced the documentation.”
Where? When? In what form?
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.