It depends on what the meaning of the word "acknowledges" is. I am not a lawyer.
See definition of acknowledge:
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.
Additional references: Law.com law dictionary
In my reading the use of the word “acknowledges” by the District Court is an assertion that the frustration of the Plaintiffs is valid, which is a form of agreement.
The District Court and the 3rd Circuit could have simply “recognized” the frustration of the Plaintiff, but they went beyond mere recognition to acknowledgment, a carefully chosen and much stronger, affirming word.
Once again, the 3rd Circuit in Kerchner referring to the Berg District Court:
“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.
Id. at 483 n.5. We agree.”
When the 3rd Circuit said “We agree.” it was agreeing to all of the foregoing ruling including the acknowledgment (validity) of the frustration specifically with “what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area” (the claims that Obama’s NBC status has not been established). The 3rd Circuit could have omitted the acknowledgment of the frustration from their agreement, but they didn't.
This makes the District Court that ruled on Berg, the 3rd Circuit Appeals panel that upheld Berg and now the 3rd Circuit Panel in Kerchner all BIRTHERS.
They are birthers to the extent that they acknowledge (consider valid) the Plaintiff's frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area (failure to clarify Obama’s constitutional NBC status).
Good job in breaking down the court “opinion”.
This makes the District Court that ruled on Berg, the 3rd Circuit Appeals panel that upheld Berg and now the 3rd Circuit Panel in Kerchner all BIRTHERS.
Thanks for pointing this out --
You’re grasping. And you sound like Bill Clinton. “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” Really?
The District Court acknowledges the existence of the Plaintiffs’ frustration not the validity of it. The DC clarifies their definition of “acknowledges” when they say the Plaintiffs’ frustration is “perceived.”
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs? frustration with what they perceive as Congress? inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.”
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.