| 
| Current Site Visitors -> 
We Get E-MailGlenn,
here is what we discussed re your feature today.
following quotes in red are from text of articles that follow -
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
Surrick did not rule on the birth certificate controversy, though he did express skepticism over the notion that a foreign-born Obama would have escaped the primaries without being discovered.
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Instead, Surrick cites Aritcle III of the U.S. Constitution, limiting federal judicial power to handling cases and controversies in which plaintiffs have clear standing through specific, personal injury.
Berg, the judge ruled, simply didn't have a case for a particular injury and thus, had no standing to sue.
Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."
• nice to know citizens have no standing.
• you will notice the judge did not rule on Obummer's birth certificate or citizenship status.
• he simply declared the issue too vague to matter.
• there goes the tattered shreds of our constitution.
• this is the kind of ruling that causes revolutions.....
• according to this report, any harm caused by ignoring constitutional requirements for president is too vague to be of any consequence.
• after all, did not Jorge Bush declare the constitution to be just a piece of paper?
• did Obummer ignore the list of "admissions" because he already knew the outcome?
• no doubt millions of illegal aliens will see this precedent as an open door for defacto amnesty, since abiding by the constitution is no longer observed in the USA.
Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
The Associated Press
Sat, Oct 25, 2008 (3:42 p.m.)
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.
Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.
Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily
Judge dismisses Obama
birth certificate lawsuit
Rules voters don't have standing to 'police'
constitutional requirements for president
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 25, 2008
3:14 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.
In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."
Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.
"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
Surrick did not rule on the birth certificate controversy, though he did express skepticism over the notion that a foreign-born Obama would have escaped the primaries without being discovered.
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Instead, Surrick cites Aritcle III of the U.S. Constitution, limiting federal judicial power to handling cases and controversies in which plaintiffs have clear standing through specific, personal injury.
Berg, the judge ruled, simply didn't have a case for a particular injury and thus, had no standing to sue.
Surrick's ruling cites a case deemed similar, Hollander v. McCain, in which it was alleged during the primary season that since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, John McCain is not a natural-born citizen either. The judge in the Hollander case also ruled a voter cannot sue to prevent an allegedly unconstitutional candidate.
Based in part on Hollander, Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."
Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which held, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."
Berg told America's Right that even if he technically can't hold Obama accountable to the Constitution, someone should. He plans to appeal his case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:09:12 -0700 (PDT), "Carol DeLis" <xxxxxxxx@yahoo.com> said:
http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/45-press-release-berg-v-obama-dismissed-berg-appealing-to-u-s-supreme-court
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 - Contact Info at end.
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
* * For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
# # #
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg -- at-- obamacrimes.com
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and so on. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
| | Current Site Visitors ->