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 ...
Yes, I know. I filed one of the complaints in Texas against Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. See jbjd’s blog for more information. S/he authored those complaints.
Has any of these suits applied to the District Court of Washington DC?
If yes, have any been deemed ‘not to have standing’? If so, why?
Has Quo Warranto been used in any federal court regarding this subject?
This makes me wonder why are attorneys filing suit in their local courts and not in Washington DC? Is this something that is lacking in their training or education? Something doesn’t appear right when attorneys are filing suits nationwide and having them dismissed. Especially if this is a know fact in the legal profession ... begs a question on the abilities of the attorneys involved. Unless they are trying to make new case law and widen the venue of the statute without legislative action.
That's also incorrect. The 3C was agreeing with a very specific conclusion made by the DC. Preceding the 3rd Circuit's statement "We agree" was a reference to page 483 number 5 of the opinion in (Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d)
Here's the District Court's conclusion (from page 483) with which the 3rd Circuit was agreeing.
Without an "injury in fact" necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action.[5]The explanation of that conclusion is detailed in footnote 5 with a reference to what the Supreme Court held in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982) and reiterates that Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch.
The 3rd Circuit is essentially saying, "We agree with the District Court that the Plaintiffs' do not have an 'injury in fact' because their grievances are generalized and should be handled by the legislative branch not the Courts. So if you want a remedy, go vote them out."
Neither the District Court nor the 3rd Circuit is agreeing with the Plaintiff that Congress failed to act in some way.
I think its mind boggling that courts refuse these cases, basically a court could say anything is “political” these days.
I take note of your assertion, but I do not acknowledge it!
Justice Thomas didn't testify under oath that the SCOTUS was avoiding the eligibility issue. The man who was questioning him made reference to his own status and jokingly asked whether or not he could be POTUS. Justice Thomas was smiling and joking when he said "we're avoiding that issue." He went on joking with him by saying that they (the SCOTUS) were giving him another option - to be a Supreme Court justice because that doesn't require one to be an NBC. Watch the video in full.
acknowledge
–verb (used with object), -edged, -edg·ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of: to acknowledge one's mistakes.
2. to show or express recognition or realization of: to acknowledge an acquaintance by nodding.
3. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of: The students acknowledged the authority of the student council.
4. to show or express appreciation or gratitude for: to acknowledge a favor.
5. to indicate or make known the receipt of: to acknowledge a letter.
6. to take notice of or reply to: to acknowledge a greeting.
7. Law . to confirm as binding or of legal force: to acknowledge a deed.
Dead wrong.
To acknowledge is to not only recognize but recognize the validity of.
The Court flat out says:
“The Court acknowledges (recognizes the validity of) Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
Yes, the Court correctly stated that it was a perception of the Plaintiffs, but they used the word “acknowledges” not the word “recognizes” to characterize the frustration with that perception.
Using the word “acknowledges” was a choice that the Berg District Court made which was affirmed by the Berg Appeals Court and now the Kerchner Appeals Court.
I recognize your disagreement, but I do not acknowledge your disagreement.
You’re so far out in left field now that you’ve lost all credibility on this one.
Acknowledging something does not inherently imply that something is valid. You can acknowledge that the theory of evolution exists without implying that it is a valid theory.
Take your ridiculous word games elsewhere.
It may or may not in context.
In your own citation in #87 of the definition of acknowledge, to merely take notice of, as you assert that the Court is doing in this ruling, is way down at number 6
"6. to take notice of"
This was the definition I posted:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/acknowledge
Description of acknowledge - American Heritage® Dictionary
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power.
The Court admitted the “existence, reality, or truth” of the plaintiffs’ frustration with their perception of inaction by Congress(1a definition)
The Court recognized “as being valid” the plaintiffs’ frustration with their perception of inaction by Congress(1b definition).
The Court was under no obligation to take any note of the feelings (frustration) of the plaintiffs, but they did. I read this in context as a clear expression of empathy with the Plaintiffs by the Courts.
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
Its going to be interesting to see how these develope. Will
they move forward or not? Perhaps it depends on the Hilley factor. Somehow I do imagine that she is on the move and the question is whether this is designed to ripen for 2012 or earlier.
Interesting insn't it, to see the Hilley Dems filing state electoral commission complaints aross the country using case in which Obama had his lawyers use pleading information they had to know was false.That opens bar complaint possibilities against them.
Using your 1a definition: "existence, reality, OR truth" indicates one of the three. "Existence, reality, AND truth" would indicate all three.
Yes, context is important. And in this case, the Court recognizes the plaintiffs' frustration with some perceived inaction. That is not to say that the Court agrees with the plaintiffs' percerption. If the Court intended to stipulate that Congress failed to act, they would do so without ambiguity. They would make it clear that they believe Congress failed to do its job.
The Court is saying they realize that the plaintiffs are frustrated and that the plaintiffs can remedy that frustration through their vote.
Like a pimple needs to “ripen” before it can be popped.
I pray every day that God will allow Obama’s natural born status to be fully revealed and that this man be removed and, if guilty, be tried for his crimes.
The issue has Americans in general very upset with the elitist posture of the GOP on this.
Hm?...Repubs are earthworms?
Repubs have the gonads of a dust mite?
Repubs are closet Marxists themselves?
As for Levin and Limbaugh....
If Levin and Limbaugh can't find the courage to seriously and strongly question the facts around Obama’s eligibility, if they can't defend the Constitution ( **ALL** OF IT!!) in the face of little ridicule from the mainstream media, why on earth would we ever expect them to defend the Constitution in the face of jack boots in the streets and the gas oven roaring full blast in the concentration camps?
Of all the people involved in this conspiracy, I am the most **DISGUSTED** with Limbaugh and Levin. I can barely stand to hear their voices.
Contrary to your assertion, the Court can walk and chew gum at the same time. The Court can express empathy for the frustration of the Plaintiffs while chastising the Plaintiffs for failing to properly cite precedent rendering the appeal frivolous.
The Court can do both things in the same ruling and I contend that they did.
Buckeye, thanks for responding.
“No, you can’t sue the Supreme Court.”
Why not? Is there a law that says you can’t? Are they untouchables? Are they a branch of the government like the other two? Can you explain.
I did watch the whole video of Justice Clarence Thomas. It was my belief that hearings are under oath. I disagree with your conclusion of it. It is not up to us to decide if Clarence Thomas was joking. In other words, transcripts don’t reflect tone or intention. The words were not uttered with sarcasm.
I believe that Justice Thomas and the congressman were having a light exchange, however, that does not prove conclusively that the statement, the Supreme Court was avoiding the eligibility issue, is false. Justice Thomas would have to say he was only kidding and the statement was not true.
On the standing issue, perhaps it would be better if a soldier returning from war, who was physically injured, would have standing. It is my understanding that the “injury in fact” must have happened. And so far only soldiers who were going to go to war have sued.
The Repubs say nothing for the reasons below, if you can think of any more add ‘em:
1. Threatened
2. Blackmailed
3. Scared gutless wonders who want to keep their jobs and pensions and are cowards who won’t rock the boat - perhaps Lingle is in that category.
4. Leftists themselves who agree in essence with the direction 0thugga is taking the country (off into the lowest abyss)
5. I would hope that some are biding their time and working behind the scenes but have seen nothing to confirm that, just hope it is true.
So many various PTB have such sick skeletons in their closets of immoral sexual doings, criminal acts etc that they are most of them pathetically easy to threaten and blackmail, I have no doubt about that.
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.