BTTT!
I am putting out a plea. Can two constituitanal lawyers please, please post plain, commonsense arguments to both sides of this issue. I would appreciate seeing it as a separate post, and in a format that could be presented to local newspapers. A brief history would also be helpful.
This seems to be a huge issue, but only because Obama refuses to release his birth certificate.
As a matter of course, all parties should submit their birth certificates - including Sarah Palin and Joe Biden... John McCain has already presented his.
I am not super good on a computer, but I would cut an paste both sides of this argument and submit them to my local newspaper.
Wow! Having a whole country stolen by a foreigner is not sufficient injury?!!
Thank you, JerseyDvl.
Ping.
I’m sharpening my pitchfork and soaking my torch.
This is a question of the constitution. If the courts hold to the position that we do not have standing to have the constitution enforced save for those which congress decides to give us then we have reached a dire precipice.
The government may need to be reminded that it exists by the consent of the governed and not the other way around.
And those who by their blood established both the declaration and constitution and defended it all these years do not deserve to have us sit idly by and let their deaths have been in vain.
This must be vigorously persued.
What this is all boiling down to is that Tail gunner Joe was right more than he would have ever believed.
Liberal judge in the tank for Bozo.
Now, I am not saying bozo isn't a citizen, although it is looking that way since he is going out of his way to avoid producing a vault copy of his BC, but I am saying this judge should have ordered Bozo to produce and failing to produce he should have declared him not eligible to run for office, period. Saying a citizen of the US has no standing to bring a suit against a violation of the people's document is BS.
No standing. Whatever happened to a government of the people, by the people?
Gosh, Judge Surrick was so careful about taking his time deliberating on this issue. I wonder what took him so long? And in the end, he comes up with this:
...a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.
Oh, well, it’s about what I expected from the corrupted system in place.
Does this mean we Freepers need to bring a Constitutional amendment to our state goevrnments to sue over the fact that representation laws of the commander and chief, should be a state law, that anyone running for President who appears on the ballot must prove proper birth and citizenship, tied the federal law so States rights would be able to sue?
We may need to mobilize at the state levels pass State laws and use them against Washington, and Jusges who thwart our laws.
Berg needs to appeal.
It might also be helpful for a group of members of the U.S. military who have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to file a parallel suit: they could argue that their oath, and the prospect of having a CIC who does not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve at POTUS gives them standing.
The coverup continues.
Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate doesn’t say that he was born in Hawaii. It cannot, because there was no doctor’s or midwife’s certificate submitted. Neither of the hospitals in Honolulu has record of his birth, nor of his mother havin been checked in for child birth.
His grandmother swears that he was born in Mombasa; why would she lie?
The doubt is gone, now that the court has closed ranks with the Democrat establishment that appointed the judge. Ruling that the voters lack standing to mount a constitutional challenge is an admission that the case has merit.
If voters lacked that standing, the thousands of environmental suits that have crippled this nation would have been thrown out of court. If voters lacked standing, who could possess it? All that hold office are placed there by the voters.
Regarding standing, how can the court say that a voter does not have standing when we, the people, are the government (“of the people, by the people and for the people”)? When “We the People of the United States” form our government and Amendment X plainly states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” who does have standing? If I am not mistaken, the power to vette is not delineated in the Constitution, thereby reserving that power to the States or the people.