Posted on 07/02/2010 1:23:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter "Appellants") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. ..." U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.
(snip)
Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
But what the hell, I am just glad to meet someone who really underdtands thet we have a fascist in the White House!
Soon America will have to engage in civil disobedience and more to defeat fascism.Like you say, that will separate ping from pong!
Hm?....I wonder if I could copy this, make the necessary changes to account for my state, and submit it to my state’s attorney general.
Would he be obligated to at least acknowledge it?
Hey, Buckeye- Have you ever heard of the US Trade Court? As I understand it, they are an independent fourth leg of the Judiciary.
Keep wondering if there is a way to put forward a case through that court. Does not have to be a direct Obama case, perhaps actions by his administration- failure to act in accordance with the Oil Protection Act of 1990, having an adverse effect on BP ADR shareholders?
Reporting the **facts** that concerning Obama’s eligibility is NOT advising open rebellion.
Rush and Levine have steadfastly refused to report the facts in any meaningful manner. So?...Why on earth would we ever expect them to be patriots if a little possible ridicule from the mainstream media is enough to cause them to shrink and wither?
These two are loudmouthed phonies and cowards. Their actions with regard to Obama’s eligibility is proof of that.
I am not an attorney. They would likely laugh at it...but..hey! Something needs to be done.
“This court affirmed the order dismissing the suit, agreeing that ‘a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.’”
Maybe there should be an argument that it is an injury to TAXPAYERS. After all, those are in limited quantity. And should service people be charged with crimes acting on orders from an ineligible pResident, it is reasonable to expect additional costs to defend said troops to be borne by TAXPAYERS.
It would be interesting in this case for a judge to explain exactly ‘Who’ has standing.
Then too, I wonder how many laws are written wherein no one has standing to sue.
Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!
********************************************
That is what I have been wondering, who does have “standing” ?
You have not used a completely parallel sentence construction to the Court ruling, but yes, such an acknowledgment would convey empathy.
Consider the following two examples using the Courts sentence construction:
I acknowledge "birther" frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...
In contrast...
I DO NOT acknowledge pedophile frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...
I acknowledge frustration of folks that I consider to have valid issues but I DO NOT acknowledge frustration of folks that I consider to have invalid or repugnant issues, even it I may take note of frustration by such folks.
I read the same distinction and use of the word “acknowledges” to convey a degree of validity in context in what the Court said:
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
You're correct. The court is not saying that "We agree" because they agree that Kerchner and Appuzo "are frustrated," and just to say yeah we see you are frustrated, which I think as silly. Of course they are. That's why they filed suit. The court is acknowledging that they are frustrated at the system that has failed to properly vet Obama. The court in a rare moment of candidness, agree that Congress, the lame press, and whoever else has failed at vetting Obama.
Go for it.Just look up Elections Commission on the web for your state.
I agree, in any normal world.....but we are no longer in a normal world. We are in Obama world, and they would say that stating the facts would be open rebellion. Rush and Levin are waitig for others to heat up the issue to volcanic proportions.
Like I said, you’re so far out in left field that you’ve lost all credibility on this one. That’s one of most absurd birther manipulations of the English language that I’ve ever read. (And I’ve read quite a few ...)
Wow.
The 3rd Circuit didn’t say “we agree” that the plaintiff is frustrated.
They said “We agree with the District Court’s ruling on page 483” that the plaintiffs do not have an “injury in fact” because their grievances are of a general nature and more appropriately addressed by the legislative branch.
This comment doesn’t exactly make sense in the decision. They say it should be addressed by the legislative branch, but that the ‘remedy’ is through ‘their (plaintiffs) votes.’ How does the legislative branch having anything to do with a remedy obtained through voting?? The legislature doesn’t control voters’ votes. It’s complete gobbledy-gook.
They also admit that Kerchner had distinguished himself as a plaintiff from the Berg case, BUT that “Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court.”
Who and how is it decided that a class is ‘impermissibly large’ and how is the complaint too ‘general’ when said class has a ‘unique ability to sue in federal court.’ This court completely undermined its own reasoning for dismissing the case.
No, it makes complete sense. Because a president’s ineligibility affects every voter, there is not a unique injury to one voter - military or civilian. (And in this particular case, the injury is mere conjecture because Kerchner isn’t active military.) So the scope of the issue then falls under the political question doctrine. All such issues should be addressed by the legislative branch. Congress could hold hearings to investigate or even remove the president.
The Court acknowledges that the plaintiffs are frustrated by a perception that Congress has failed to act on this issue. The Court takes no position on whether or not Congress failed to act. They essentially tell the plaintiffs that if they are not satisfied with how the legislative branch has handled this matter, then the remedy to their frustration is to vote the b@st@rds out!
(FR attorneys: If I’ve incorrectly described how this issue falls under the political question doctrine, please correct me.)
No where in the Opinion did they state where Obama was born.
We the people have a contract with our Government that Demands a Natural born citizen with no allegiance to any foreign power. That requires a specific birth location to be public information.
The constitution continues to be violated. We have a Kenyan born citizen putting our country into bankruptcy.
The court fails to document the specifics of our presidents origins ... because they can't.
We can point to the very ground where Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky. We can see the building where Reagan was born. We can see the home in Massachusetts where Kennedy was born.
But, we must not know where Obama was born. This is antithetical to our constitution. Our constitution demands the answer. This court has spit on that constitution.
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
Unfortunately, you've quoted out of context. The full quote, in context:
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.
Furthermore, ackowledging frustration is not the same as agreeing with the cause of the frustration. Ask any psychiatrist.
The President know enslaves future generations to debt that can never be repaid, just as a Slave master burden's his slave with chains.
In November, the slave will grab the whip and wrap it around his masters neck.
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.