Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss."
Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.
That is not entirely correct. In order to have standing then you have to have suffered real damages to a legally protected interest. In the Hollander v. McCain decision the judge seemed to indicate that McCain may have standing because as a serious presidential candidate he could well have been said to suffer damages by being beaten by an ineligible opponent. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, does not have standing because his chances of winning was zero regardless of who else was in the race.
Footnote 5 from the bottom of page 11:
"Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices."
Basically, the judge says it is up the legislative branch to ensure a properly qualified President is elected. Since they have qualified him and installed him into office, the court has nothing to say about it.
Well, there you are citizens. Now shut up and move along.
The reason you never made fun of the lawyers in this lawsuit is that they lost and that is what you wanted. If the lawyers lose they do a good job. If the lawyers become troublesome and fight like hell they are discredited.
You are such a dishonest person. I’d hate to be you ten years from now.
Only if one is delusional enough to believe that Keyes had a chance of winning. Otherwise I could say that I suffered damages because I couldn't win the election due to Obama being ineligible.
In Birtherland, the only true test of conservatism is being a Birther.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219 (1993)
Well what about former owners of car dealerships? oil servcie companies, GM stock owners.........i'm sure they and their accountants could show detailed losses.
Another clear cut example of the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’. This decision is well written, well cited, and concise. It is legally correct.
It is, however, a moral abomination. It is a prime example of what is wrong in the US judiciary. There is a valid Constitutional question in play, here. And, to this point, NO one has standing? Bull Puckey!
It is decisions like this that will drive this nation to its next revolution.
‘stimulus’ comes to mind as harming all of us.
Nothing. The two are not related.
2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?
Not in California. She had that Captain in the Rhodes case who's orders weren't rescinded and who reported for duty about the time the judge dismissed the case.
What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds? Would the equal right amendment retroactively allow the Mother to pass "Natural Born" citizenry even though under age given the laws at the time?
The 1790 Naturalization law only defined natural-born citizen in the case of a child born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents. Citizenship of those born in the U.S. wasn't addressed. The Equal Rights Amendment, even had it been passed, would not have impacted citizenship laws.
Thanks, I didn’t realize the “natural born” wording had been repealed.
Headline should have read: Judge in eligibility case receives offer he can’t refuse!
I’m sure they can show losses, but can they show that those losses were a direct result of actions taken by Obama as an ineligible president?
If so, they should go to court.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.
No US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.
NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL:
Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation. A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder…
El Gato pointed out to me that the “Natural Born” wording was repealed in 1795. So apparently the 1790 law shouldn’t come into play at all.
I thought conservatives abhorred judicial activism?
Wasn't McCain the defendant?
The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself.
But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.
Yes, but the plaintiff needs to show standing and not the defendant.
That’s an interesting concept. Libtards believe that it is immoral not to provide health insurance to those who can’t afford it. Would we want judges deciding in favor of the libtards based on their definition of morality?
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.