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.
Excuse me, Mr. ESP, but the last time I looked, none of these cases has a snowball’s chance in h*ll. Obama has been sworn in. It is very unlikely that any federal district court is going to do anything based upon “suspicion.” Certain of us have teased and joked about Orly, but not this guy who only lost today.
The problem with Orly isn’t that she’s “troublesome and fights like hell”, it is that she fights like a maniac, “full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing.” That is why she got sanctions put on her.
And no, I am probably one of the most honest persons you will ever encounter. I tell it like I see whether I like it or not. Or, whether you like it or not. The truth is what the truth is. And FWIW, I hate being me right now, and I am about to take off for a year or two and try to get my health back so that 10 years from now, I will like being me again.
parsy, who just tells it like it is (or like he sees it)whichever
There are several means of pursuing judicial remedy that are not dependent upon individual standing. Apuzzo has constructed a well-considered argument, that deserves to be heard and the issue decided.
Just thinking out loud, here, without having researched the matter: class action on behalf of Constitutional natural-born citizens, who have been disenfranchised by an apparent taking, of Constitutional status reserved solely unto them?
RICO? I’d think a careful perusal of FR alone, over the past year and a half, could provide sufficient cites to build a plausible case.
And no, don’t even go into Orly Taitz, Lawyer-Dentist. Just because she’s thrown the term RICO out during one of her patented soapbox garbles doesn’t mean that the issue has actually been approached in that manner. If there’s any actual relevancy, better jump on it before she $#!ts the bed, though, imho.
Of course he didn’t have a real chance but that is not the issue nor would it be up to a judge to decide whether Keyes could actually win or not
Keyes was a bonafide candidate, odumbo was not
He has already been sworn in. The courts really don’t have jurisdiction over this. Particularly when there is no real evidence Obama is anything but an American.
parsy, who says you don’t have to like a person for them to be an American
They do except when it applies to their cause. About like big business and doctors: they hate lawsuits where they’re the defendants and love lawsuits where they are the plaintiffs.
parsy, who is LOL
blah blah blah ——— you say. others think there is plenty of evidence that the court has not examined
Legally you are correct. However, and as odd as it sounds, the 1790 Act has been cited in SR 511, the Senate Resolution resolving John McCain to be a natural-born citizen.
The Senate appears to have interpreted that Act as being indicative of Framer's intent, since so many of them were in Congress at the time that Act became law.
But, it can be argued, and I think El Gato would possibly agree, that such an Act is actually an acknowledgement that the particular aspect of citizenship in question was not addressed by the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Act was repealed and replaced in 1795, with nearly identical language, exception being that "natural-born citizen" was replaced with merely "citizen."
It's difficult to avoid concluding, that Congress recognized that their Constitutionally enumerated power disallowed such a statute, and so the statute was revised within their power enumerated, of naturalization only.
But, intent of the Framers is what matters as far as any definitive understanding of "natural-born citizen," and so the 1790 Act will come into play, revised, repealed, revoked or what have you, doesn't matter, because it was pertinent under original intent.
In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff must generally have suffered or will suffer a real injury that is distinct from the injury suffered by the public-at-large. In my opinion, the only people with standing to challenge 0bama's constitutional qualifications to serve as POTUS are opposing candidates who had a real chance of winning the election and/or their political party.
Standing is just the first step, however. The action must also be timely, and under the laws of all if not every state, the time to challenge the qualifications of a candidate is when the name placed on the ballot, not after the election.
Um, if you misspeak, then correct yourself, we are supposed to take the misspeak as your true intent? ... Think about it. The very fact that the 1795 Act removed the misspeak is more relevent than the original wording of 1790 Act.
‘Chance of winning’ is specious and straight from the DOJ talking points. The right to a fair election process is founded upon legal election ... unless you’re an Eric Holder minion of course.
Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:
“Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag27_user.html
Powell v. McCormack
Follow the link to Mario Appuzo’s site for more detail
Sure they do. But not enough of a chance to demonstrate damages due to an illegal opponent.
Sure it would, in order to demonstrate damages as defined by law.
Powell v. McCormick disn't discuss standing at all. Powell obviously had standing because he was elected to Congress but not seated. It was a case on the "political question" doctrine, not on standing.
It's more relevant under subsequent law, but it's not more relevant regarding prior intent, and that intent is what is at question.
Besides, it's not me, who entered The Naturalization Act Of 1790 into play as being relevant to the matter. It was the Senate, back in April of 2008. The Senate interpretation appears to be that Framers' intent is demonstrated by that Act.
I'm working to develop an understanding that indicates the opposite.
So, write a letter, send an e-mail or call to register your disaproval of such a belief in the Senate, if it displeases you. I'm just the messenger here, and am trying to shoot it down.
I don’t even know you, but I kow you better than you know yourself.
All that vitriolic poison in your veins is making you ill and I suspected as much. Your resentments are killing you and you would do well to examine your conscience to rediscover natural honesty.
The problem with an expert like yourself, is that he is always there to tell you when you are wrong, wrong wrong but he will never lead you to a victory because he is to ill and dishonest.
The reason you are praising this attorney is that he lost and that is what you want. I would not want you to cover my back in combat. At the slightest sign of a scuffle you’d be sending up the white flag throwing your buddies under the bus just so you could be heard at the microphones pontificating why we lost and why we never had a chance.
With this kind of dishonesty and deceit in your heart you’ll never get well. Sorry!
For those that can’t follow a link. I repeat. ANYONE HAS STANDING or as they put it back the, subject matter jurisdiction.
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html
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.