Posted on 11/29/2010 7:37:16 AM PST by Elderberry
I’ve given lists where I’ve asked how this or that plaintiff had “standing”. By the standards used for the eligibility issue, you tell me how the Muslim in Oklahoma has “standing” to get the anti-sharia Constitutional amendment put on hold and a case put forward.
How the heck can that dude have “standing” for a Constitutional amendment that hasn’t even gone into effect and which applies equally to everybody.... when an army officer who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic is forced to choose between the brig or breaking his oath DOESN’T have “standing” to have the issue that caused him that harm heard and genuinely considered on its merits?
Any fool can see how backwards this is. Edge has it exactly right. It’s just an excuse for judges who want to be able to ignore cases at will. If it was applied uniformly it could serve a legitimate purpose I suppose - just like EPA’s stupid rules could serve a purpose if they didn’t exempt only the people who are causing the troubles. But it’s not applied uniformly, which is a violation of equal protection and due process.
But then this is the USSA. Who cares about equal protection and due process any more? God deliver us!
If you can’t find such a plaintiff, then see if a crime was committed and use the criminal justice system rather than the civil system. There are no issues of standing in the criminal justice system.
IOW, piss on the unwashed masses. Pardon my french. It’s a repulsive subject altogether.
The whole point of this option is supposed to be for the people to make sure that officials have to obey the rules. To say that only officials can utilize this option defeats the whole purpose, IMHO.
Next thing only the political elites will be able to report a speeding or drunk driver to the police so they can check it out. Heaven forbid what would happen if somebody besides the elite screwing - er, ruling - class had the ability to help effect the rule of law!
I really do need to clean up my language, clean up my thoughts. Just finding out that both my Senators voted to bankrupt my brothers and eventually starve my children is not sitting well with me. NObody in Washington DC has a clue, even after the voters hit them in the face with a 2x4 less than a month ago.
So only Congress-critters can report drunk or speeding drivers, since we have to be “represented” to law enforcement - have to have an intermediary since law enforcement and the courts don’t dare get their hands dirty slumming with normal folks?
I’m not talking about law-making. Of course I know we are a representative form of government when it comes to law-making. But in the courts? We have to have law-makers represent us within the law enforcement system?
That makes total mash out of the separation of powers and the whole concept of equal protection and due process. Next we’ll be praying the rosary to Congress or folks like Fitzgerald, since we can’t DIRECTLY petition the government for a redress of grievances but have to make sure we’ve got our mediator between the government “god” and men.
Hmm. Maybe you were talking about my “DC doesn’t have a clue” comment. I’m sure my Senators think they’re representing me. What they don’t get is that when they trample the Constitutional limits on government they trample me, my family, and everything I love.
So only Congress-critters can report drunk or speeding drivers, since we have to be “represented” to law enforcement - have to have an intermediary since law enforcement and the courts don’t dare get their hands dirty slumming with normal folks?
I’m not talking about law-making. Of course I know we are a representative form of government when it comes to law-making. But in the courts? We have to have law-makers represent us within the law enforcement system?
That makes total mash out of the separation of powers and the whole concept of equal protection and due process. Next we’ll be praying the rosary to Congress or folks like Fitzgerald, since we can’t DIRECTLY petition the government for a redress of grievances but have to make sure we’ve got our mediator between the government “god” and men.
Hmm. Maybe you were talking about my “DC doesn’t have a clue” comment. I’m sure my Senators think they’re representing me. What they don’t get is that when they trample the Constitutional limits on government they trample me, my family, and everything I love.
Yeah, it actually does. Congress is NEVER unanimous on anything, except maybe to condemn the 9-11 attacks. Yet they’re seemingly unanimous against this issue that 60% of the public has questions about.
So yes, I think you’re right on that, jamese777. That does say something in and of itself. When you get that kind of lock-step against the public sentiment it does say something.
Yeah, it actually does. Congress is NEVER unanimous on anything, except maybe to condemn the 9-11 attacks. Yet they’re seemingly unanimous against this issue that 60% of the public has questions about.
So yes, I think you’re right on that, jamese777. That does say something in and of itself. When you get that kind of lock-step against the public sentiment it does say something.
It’s curious that there is not a single judge in the entire country who is willing to grant standing to sue.
Lawyers know how to “judge shop” to find a judge who is the most likely to be favorable to their side on any particular issue. Orly Taitz “judge shopped” for Royce Lamberth because he was a Reagan appointee, but he shot her down.
You’re not listening. According to the SCOTUS, the standing doctrine only applies to Congressional statutes. The court said they can only rule laws as unconstitutional if plaintiffs have proper standing. No one is trying to rule the Constitution as unconstitutional; only that the current occupant, President Stitch Lips, is not constitutionally eligible to hold office.
You’re not listening. According to the SCOTUS, the standing doctrine only applies to Congressional statutes. The court said they can only rule laws as unconstitutional if plaintiffs have proper standing. No one is trying to rule the Constitution as unconstitutional; only that the current occupant, President Stitch Lips, is not constitutionally eligible to hold office.
Justiciability be damned!
I’m going to start with Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas who have now denied relief to nine different plaintiffs.
“No one is trying to rule the Constitution as unconstitutional.” Now THAT’S a phrase to remember.
Include the citations to Fairchild v. Hughes. The court was clear in what it said.
“No one is trying to rule the Constitution as unconstitutional.” Now THAT’S a phrase to remember.
I hope you do. Challenging Obama's eligibility isn't a matter of trying to rule a statute as unconstitutional. The only way the current application of the standing doctrine makes sense is if by applying the absurdity that I brought up. You can continue to play dumb as you like.
Include the citations to Fairchild v. Hughes. The court was clear in what it said.
“No one is trying to rule the Constitution as unconstitutional.” Now THAT’S a phrase to remember.
I hope you do. Challenging Obama’s eligibility isn’t a matter of trying to rule a statute as unconstitutional. The only way the current application of the standing doctrine makes sense is if by applying the absurdity that I brought up. You can continue to play dumb as you like.
IV. Conclusion (Hollander v McCain)
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss
is granted on the ground that Hollander lacks standing. All
other pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php
Maybe you didn’t notice, but McCain’s not president, so we’re not talking about upholding and enforcing the Constitution in that lawsuit.
It’s worth noting that the lawsuit was filed only two days after the factlack dot org photos Obama’s alleged COLB were taken. Hmmmmm ....
They did, just as in Dred Scott.
Dredd Scott didn't have standing either.Syllabus A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
60 U.S. 393
Scott v. Sandford
Argued: --- Decided:
... his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
Actually, one case was heard on the merits-- the Arkenny case in Indiana decided that both Obama and McCain were natural born citizens.
Actually, one case was heard on the merits— the Arkenny case in Indiana decided that both Obama and McCain were natural born citizens.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal but went further and found that both John McCain and Barack Obama met the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen under the 14th Amendment and “based on the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark.”
There was no “trial” in Ankeny “on the merits” as those in the “Obama in ineligible movement” construe a “trial on the merits.”
The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the appeallate court’s decision and Ankeny was not further appealed to the federal courts.
You need to review the case. It didn't declare either of them to be natural born citizens, especially not Obama. They couldn't because Obama has never proven he was born in the United States. Second, the case wasn't heard. This was an appeals court that rejected giving Ankeny his day in court.
The plaintiff didn't deny that Obama was born in Hawai'i; he argued that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a citizen. Based on the plaintiff's admission, the court found that Obama was indeed an NBC.
Second, the case wasn't heard. This was an appeals court that rejected giving Ankeny his day in court.
It was a decision on the merits-- they didn't dismiss for lack of standing or jurisdiction, but instead decided that, even if everything the plaintiff alleged was true, Obama and McCain were both natural born citizens.
You need to review the case. It didn’t declare either of them to be natural born citizens, especially not Obama. They couldn’t because Obama has never proven he was born in the United States. Second, the case wasn’t heard. This was an appeals court that rejected giving Ankeny his day in court.
“IT’S A FACT, HE WAS BORN HERE.”- LINDA LINGLE, GOVERNOR OF HAWAI’I
You know as well as I do that no one in Hawaii has legally verfied Obama being born in Hawaii. Why do you continue to fool yourself by pretending otherwise??
The plaintiff DID contest Obama being born in Hawaii and this court conveniently omitted this fact in its false summation of natural born citizenship. Read the decision closely: "Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: ... neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America ..."
It was a decision on the merits-- they didn't dismiss for lack of standing or jurisdiction, but instead decided that, even if everything the plaintiff alleged was true, Obama and McCain were both natural born citizens.
The decision was not on the merits, as in oral arguments were never presented. The lower court dismissal was upheld by the appeals court because it said the plaintiff's case "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In regard to its review of natural born citizenship, the real meat of their decision is ".. we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case." This decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural born citizen; they simply presented an self-contradictory definition of natural born citizen, but rejected the case on failure to state a claim. It's a very embarrassing piece of legal writing as the court made several errors and inexplicably mischaracterized the plaintiffs arguments.
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.