- Now, that's interesting.
-
- Her case has a hearing tomorrow while Obama/Soetoro speaks
to the kiddies.
-
- Why did DOJ wait until the 11th hour this past Friday
to file their motion when they have known about this hearing for some time?
They file on Friday, today is a holiday and Orly's hearing is tomorrow.
-
- DOJ says that none of the plaintiffs who were candidates
had any chance of winning the election anyway, so its okay to leave a constitutionally
ineligible candidate on the ballot and then in office. So what if Obama/Soetoro
was born with dual citizenship and can never be eligible?
-
- And, of course, on page 14 of the fed's motion (link
in the article) we go back to the issue of standing.
-
- According to the courts so far, no one on this earth
has standing when it comes to challenging the constitutional eligibility
of The One, his holiness, Obama/Soetoro.
-
- http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0909/DOJ_to_judge_dump_birthers_suit.html
-
- "The Justice Department is urging a federal court
to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers' attorney Orly
Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama's Constitutional qualifications
to be president."
-
- Rest at link
-
- I go back to an Oct. 29, 2008 column Dr. Edwin Vieira
wrote regarding standing. This is just an excerpt; read the rest at link
-
- http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
-
- The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because
Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for "the Office of President,
but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks "standing
to challenge Obama,s eligibility:
-
- regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains
too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A]
candidate,s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not
result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional
harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly
ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
-
- This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
-
- First, the Constitution mandates that "[t]he judicial
Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg,s suit plainly "aris[es]
under th[e] Constitution, in the sense of raising a critical constitutional
issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional "Case[
]. The present judicial test for whether a litigant,s claim constitutes
a constitutional "Case[ ] comes under the rubric of "standing"a
litigant with "standing may proceed; one without "standing may
not. "Standing, however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution.
Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of "standing, as they have
been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found
there. Rather, the test for "standing is almost entirely a judicial
invention.
-
- True enough, the test for "standing is not as ridiculous
as the judiciary,s so-called "compelling governmental interest test,
which licenses public officials to abridge individuals, constitutional
rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those
officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which
is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of "standing
as abusive as the "immunities judges have cut from whole cloth for
public officials who violate their constitutional "Oath[s] or Affirmation[s],
to support this Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3)"in the face of
the Constitution,s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article
I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant
must present a true "Case[ ]. Yet, because the test for "standing
is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics
can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be
faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance,
inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America,s constitutional form
of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported
"election of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility
for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch
of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative
Branch (as explained below).
-
- Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama
fastened"namely, that Berg,s "grievance remains too generalized
to establish the existence of an injury in fact, i.e., if everyone is injured
or potentially injured then no one has "standing"is absurd on
its face.
-
-
|
