Posted on 09/20/2024 5:58:21 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
For more details about the Ballot Access Challenge filed with the AG of FL file by Florida resident Theodore “Teo” Moran, see his new website: http://www.naturalborncitizen.us
The challenge should be in ALL states.
She would be president of all the states.
Seems as if the cleanest case would be someone running for POTUS suing to be included on the ballot after having been excluded by a state-level Secretary of State on the basis of not being a U.S. natural Born citizen.
Trying to sue to get someone running for POTUS removed from a state ballot after the SOS has signed off on inclusion? Seems like it would be inherently and chronically difficult for such a litigant to demonstrate standing.
I’m just reporting the news.
Okay, yeah.
Being “on the ballot” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and for good reason - there are no “Presidential elections” in the Constitution, and voters do not appoint the President - Electors do.
All this will do is elicit sympathy for her and give ammunition to the liberals.
The standing nonsense was all made up by courts that wanted an easy out. It was not in original law and violates the constitution as well. The first use of it did not occur until at least the late 18 hundreds. I don’t remember the exact wording but the constitution gives us the right to be heard of our grievances.
Or grease the skids for Big Mike or PIAPS. Let’s see if Tampon Tim soils himself at the VP debate, which may be a decision point.
I would agree that this challenge to Harris’ eligibility should be put forth by all states, or at least the ones where state officers can read & understand the U.S. Constitution.
P
I, along with many others, have been posting this info since Kamala became VP. Why won't the national Republican Party file this challenge? Because the national Republican Party is USELESS! Mike Johnson is two faced and Matt Gaetz caused turmoil among House GOP by throwing out one turncoat Speaker to foist Johnson on us!
The House Dems say Johnson is the best Republican Speaker they have ever had. Running the country is only half of Prez Trump's problems; he is going to have to build a non-RINO party in just four years!
psst. I got a secret for you. Listen closely.
Barack Obama was president for 8 years. Kamala has been veep for nearly 4.
You know why? Because they are both Natural Born Citizens.
Correct. Not helpful.
NBC kooks are no better than Never Trumpers. They waste all their time and energy on never ending rabbit chases while ignoring the real and present dangers facing our country.
Natural born citizen is a requirement to hold the office of President or Vice-President. It is not a requirement to be a candidate for either office; e.g. one need not be 35 ears old to be a candidate, but if one is not 35 years old on inauguration day, one may not assume and execute office.
The Plaintiff must allege an injury in fact particularized to the Plaintiff, and not a general injury shared by many others.
Kerchner v. Obama, DCNJ 09-253, Doc 41, OPINION (20 Oct 2009)
II. DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. A determination of proper subject matter jurisdiction is vital, because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction voids any decree entered in a federal court and the continuation of litigation in a federal court without jurisdiction would be futile." Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987). An attack on subject matter jurisdiction can be either facial — based solely on the allegations in the complaint — or factual — looking beyond the allegations to attack jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Id.
B. 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, 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. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties' treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.
Let the U.S. Supreme Court explain it. No standing = no case.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep454464/
U.S. Supreme Court
Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
No. 80-327
Argued November 4, 1981
Decided January 12, 1982
454 U.S. 464
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Pursuant to its authority under the Property Clause, Congress enacted the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide an economical and efficient system for the disposal of surplus Federal Government property. Under the statute, property that has outlived its usefulness to the Government is declared "surplus" and may be transferred to private or other public entities. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (now the Secretary of Education) to assume responsibility for disposing of surplus real property for educational use, and he may sell such property to nonprofit, tax-exempt educational institutions for consideration that takes into account any benefit which has accrued or may accrue to the United States from the transferee's use of the property. Property formerly used as a military hospital was declared to be "surplus property" under the Act and was conveyed by the Department of HEW to petitioner church-related college. The appraised value of the property, $577,500, was discounted by the Secretary of HEW's computation of a 100% public benefit allowance, thus permitting petitioner to acquire the property without making any financial payment. Respondents, an organization dedicated to the separation of church and State and several of its employees, brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the conveyance on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and alleging that each member of respondent organization "would be deprived of the fair and constitutional use of his (her) tax dollars." The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondents lacked standing to sue as taxpayers under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, and failed to allege any actual injury beyond a generalized grievance common to all taxpayers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although respondents lacked standing as taxpayers to challenge the conveyance, they had standing merely as "citizens," claiming "injury in fact' to their shared individuated right to a government that `shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,'" which standing was sufficient to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Art. III.
Page 454 U. S. 465
Held: Respondents do not have standing, either in their capacity as taxpayers or as citizens, to challenge the conveyance in question. Pp. 454 U. S. 471-490.
(a) The exercise of judicial power under Art. III is restricted to litigants who can show "injury in fact" resulting from the action that they seek to have the court adjudicate. Pp. 454 U. S. 471-476.
(b) Respondents are without standing to sue as taxpayers, because the source of their complaint is not a congressional action but a decision by HEW to transfer a parcel of federal property, and because the conveyance in question was not an exercise of Congress' authority conferred by the Taxing and Spending Clause, but by the Property Clause. Cf. Flast v. Cohen, supra. Pp. 454 U. S. 476-482.
(c) Nor have respondents sufficiently alleged any other basis for standing to bring suit. Although they claim that the Constitution has been violated, they claim nothing else. They fail to identify any personal injury suffered as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error, other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees. That is not injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III. While respondents are firmly committed to the constitutional principle of separation of church and State, standing is not measured by the intensity of the litigant's interest or the fervor of his advocacy. Pp. 454 U. S. 482-487.
(d) Enforcement of the Establishment Clause does not justify special exceptions from the standing requirements of Art. III. There is no place in our constitutional scheme for the philosophy that the business of the federal courts is correcting constitutional errors, and that "cases and controversies" are at best merely convenient vehicles for doing so, and, at worst, nuisances that may be dispensed with when they become obstacles to that transcendent endeavor. And such philosophy does not become more palatable when the underlying merits concern the Establishment Clause. Pp. 454 U. S. 488-490.
619 F.2d 252, reversed.
As for cases or controversies, standing is an Article 3 requirement. If the Plaintiff lacks standing, there is no legal Plaintiff, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the asserted case must be dismissed. There must be an “injury in fact," defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized."
In the case by Lin Wood, the District Court shot him down point by point. His claim to standing was as a registered voter. Wood simply did not suffer an injury particularized to himself and absent standing, the Court has no jurisdiction as there is no lawful Plaintiff. This "case" never rose from the dead.
L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Raffensperger, GAND 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, Doc 54, OPINION AND ORDER (20 Nov 2020), pp. 12-14:
a. StandingAs a threshold matter, the Court finds Wood lacks standing to assert these claims. Article III limits federal courts to the consideration of “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The doctrine of standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
It is “built on separation-of-powers principles” and “serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013). See also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (“[N]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997)). The standing inquiry is threefold: “The litigant must prove (1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). Wood must “demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought”—Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017)—and shoulders “the burden of establishing [each] element[ ].” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.
Injury in fact is “the first and foremost of standing’s three elements” and requires Wood to show that he suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547–48. To be “particularized,” the alleged injury “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 n.1. Wood must demonstrate “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” as a federal court “is not a forum for generalized grievances.” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018). This requires more than a mere “keen interest in the issue.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018). The alleged injury must be “distinct from a generally available grievance about government.” Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1923. See also id. at 1929 (explaining that a person’s “right to vote is individual and personal in nature . . . [t]hus [only] voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue to remedy that disadvantage”) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 206 (1962)). Claims premised on allegations that “the law . . . has not been followed . . . [are] precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government . . . [and] quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing.” Dillard v. Chilton Cnty. Comm’n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1332–33 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 207–08). See also Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 440– 41 (2007) (“Our refusal to serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy pedigree. . . . [A] generalized grievance that is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public” is not sufficient for standing).
Wood alleges he has standing because he is “a qualified registered elector residing in Fulton County, Georgia” who has “made donations to various Republican candidates on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 elections, and his interests are aligned with those of the Georgia Republican Party for the purposes of the instant lawsuit.”23 These allegations fall far short of demonstrating that Wood has standing to assert these claims.
From: Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, West Publishing, 2003, pp. 84-5.
c) Citizen StandingAt least in the absence of congressional legislation authorizing the suit, a citizen lacks a sufficient personal interest to challenge government acts as unconstitutional. Her interest is viewed as an "abstract injury" and a "generalized grievance" held in common with citizens generally. While individual justices have argued that the bar to citizen standing is a prudential rule of judicial self-restraint, the Court has generally treated it as an Art. III impediment.
Examples:
(1) A citizen lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute authorizing the director of the CIA to certify expenditures as a violation of the constitutional requirement of a regular accounting of the use of public funds. United States v. Richardson (1974).
(2) A citizen has only a generalized interest, insufficient to maintain standing, in challenging the holding of reservist status by a congressman in violation of the Incompatibility Clause which prohibits members of Congress from holding other office. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War (1974).
(3) A citizen and taxpayer lacks standing to challenge an HEW grant of surplus land under a federal statute to a religious institution as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Since the challenge was to an HEW action rather than a federal statute and since the government grant was based on the property power rather than the Taxing and Spending Clause, the challengers did not have standing under Flast as taxpayers. Nor does a citizen qua citizen have standing to challenge government action merely to correct constitutional wrongs. An Establishment Clause claim does not eliminate the Art. III requirement of personal injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State (1982).
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep418166/
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)United States v. Richardson
No. 72-885
Argued October 10, 1973
Decided June 25, 1974
418 U.S. 166
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, as a federal taxpayer, brought this suit for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of unconstitutionality of the Central Intelligence Agency Act, which permits the CIA to account for its expenditures "solely on the certificate of the Director. . . ." 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). The complaint alleged that the Act violated Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, of the Constitution insofar as that clause requires a regular statement and account of public funds. The District Court's dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, respondent's lack of standing under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, was reversed by the Court of Appeals. That court held that respondent had standing as a taxpayer on the ground that he satisfied Flast's requirements that the allegations (1) challenge an enactment under the Taxing and Spending Clause of Art I, § 8, and show (2) a "nexus" between the plaintiff's status and a specific constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending power.
Held: Respondent lacks standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 171-180.
(a) Flast, which stressed the need for meeting the requirements of Art. III, did not
"undermine the salutary principle . . . established by Frothingham [v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447] . . . that a taxpayer may not 'employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.'" Pp. 171-174.
(b) Respondent's challenge, not being addressed to the taxing or spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA's accounting and reporting procedures, provides no "logical nexus" between his status as "taxpayer" and the asserted failure of Congress to require more detailed reports of expenditures of the CIA. Pp. 174-175.
(c) Respondent's claim that, without detailed information on the CIA's expenditures, he cannot properly follow legislative or executive action, and thereby fulfill his obligations as a voter, is a generalized grievance insufficient under Frothingham or Flast to show that "he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining direct injury as the result" of such action. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634. Pp. 418 U. S. 176-178.
465 F.2d 844, reversed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 180. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 197. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 235. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 418 U. S. 202.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
[...]
418 U. S. 179
It can be argued that, if respondent is not permitted to litigate this issue, no one can do so. In a very real sense, the absence of any particular individual or class to litigate these claims gives support to the argument that the subject matter is committed to the surveillance of Congress, and ultimately to the political process. Any other conclusion would mean that the Founding Fathers intended to set up something in the nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England town meeting to oversee the conduct of the National Government by means of lawsuits in federal courts. The Constitution created a representative Government, with the representatives directly responsible to their constituents at stated periods of two, four, and six years; that the Constitution does not afford a judicial remedy does not, of course, completely disable the citizen who is not satisfied with the "ground rules" established by the Congress for reporting expenditures of the Executive Branch. Lack of standing within the narrow confines of Art. III jurisdiction does not impair the right to assert his views in the political forum or at the polls. Slow, cumbersome, and unresponsive though the traditional electoral process may be thought at times, our system provides for changing members of the political branches when dissatisfied citizens convince a sufficient number of their fellow electors that elected representatives are delinquent in performing duties committed to them.
As our society has become more complex, our numbers more vast, our lives more varied, and our resources more strained, citizens increasingly request the intervention of the courts on a greater variety of issues than at any period of our national development. The acceptance of new categories of judicially cognizable injury has not eliminated the basic principle that, to invoke judicial power, the claimant must have a "personal stake in the outcome,"
[...]
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep418208/
U.S. Supreme Court
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee, 418 U.S. 208 (1974)Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
No. 72-1188
Argued January 14, 1974
Decided June 25, 1974
418 U.S. 208
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondents -- an association of present and former members of the Armed Forces Reserve opposing United States involvement in Vietnam, and five association members who were United States citizens and taxpayers -- brought a class action on behalf, inter alia, of all United States citizens and taxpayers against petitioners, the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries, challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatibility Clause of Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, of the Constitution, which provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." The District Court held that respondents had standing to sue as citizens but not as taxpayers, and, on the merits, granted partial relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. Respondents had no standing to sue as citizens, since the claimed nonobservance of the Incompatibility Clause which they assert deprives citizens of the faithful discharge of the legislative duties of reservist Members of Congress implicates only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance, and is thus merely an abstract injury, rather than the concrete injury that is essential to satisfy Art. III's "case or controversy" requirement. Pp. 418 U. S. 216-227.
2. Respondents also lacked standing to sue as taxpayers, since they failed to establish the required "logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 392 U. S. 102. Pp. 418 U. S. 227-228.
162 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 495 F.2d 1075, reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 228. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 418 U. S. 229. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 418 U. S. 235, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 418 U. S. 238, filed dissenting opinions.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
[...]
Respondents' motivation has indeed brought them sharply into conflict with petitioners, but, as the Court has noted, motivation is not a substitute for the actual injury needed by the courts and adversaries to focus litigation efforts and judicial decisionmaking. Moreover, the evaluation of the quality of the presentation on the merits was a retrospective judgment that could have properly been arrived at only after standing had been found so as to permit the court to consider the merits. A logical corollary to this approach would be the manifestly untenable view that the inadequacy of the presentation on the merits would be an appropriate basis for denying standing.
Furthermore, to have reached the conclusion that respondents' interests as citizens were meant to be protected by the Incompatibility Clause because the primary purpose of the Clause was to insure independence of each of the branches of the Federal Government similarly involved an appraisal of the merits before the issue of standing was resolved. All citizens, of course, share equally an interest in the independence of each branch of Government. In some fashion, every provision of the Constitution
was meant to serve the interests of all. Such a generalized interest, however, is too abstract to constitute a "case or controversy" appropriate for judicial resolution. [Footnote 16] The proposition that all constitutional provisions are enforceable by any citizen simply because citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of those provisions has no boundaries.
Closely linked to the idea that generalized citizen interest is a sufficient basis for standing was the District Court's observation that it was not irrelevant that, if respondents could not obtain judicial review of petitioners' action, "then, as a practical matter, no one can." Our system of government leaves many crucial decisions to the political processes. The assumption that, if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing is not a reason to find standing. See United States v. Richardson, ante at 418 U. S. 179.
psst. I got a secret for you. Listen closely.
Joe Biden has been President for nearly 4 years. Kamala has been veep for nearly 4.
You know why? Because they both won the election in 2020.
Ping ! Here we go again.
You know why? Because they are both Natural Born Citizens.
Well that's not the reason. The reason is because nobody bothers to find out and just assumes they are.
Secretaries of state should do this job, but they were not going to touch it because Obama was black. They wouldn't be caught within a ten foot pole of questioning the first "black" candidate's eligibility.
Besides, all their lawyer buddies use the most expansive definition possible, and nobody bothers to find out if it is accurate. (It isn't.)
So laziness and cowardice are the reasons, not competency.
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.