It reads like it's written by school children. If it's so "competent", how are they so entirely wrong about this story?
If you think it's the only competent news site on the WWW, I would recommend you expand your reading list. You might want to start with National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall St. Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Volkh Conspiracy, Telegraph UK. There are more. World Nut Daily makes the musing of the John Birch Society seem rational.
All the news reads like it was written by school children, because it was written FOR childish mentalities.
Its written in a way that gets the readers interest by the first line, which 99% of the time is unrepresentative of the main article.
Getting read is the name of the game. At least WND plays up the artiocles that most need to be read, instead of spiking, or burying them at page 47.
.
If you are in denial so deeply that you find the hard work that the Birch society does to be ‘irrational,’ you’re not even consious.
.
“We’re Nuts Daily” doesn’t make an attempt at getting things right. Any legal case they review will confuse them, since logic and law are meaningless to nuts.
Part of the decision being appealed:
“Article III Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ...and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson,
Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.
418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,
We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.”
“Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8.)
While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing.”
I’m curious...do you believe Obama to be an American citizen?