View Full Version : Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Nukeman
10-26-2008, 10:24 AM
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional requirements for president
I have to say I am shocked by this ruling. I mean after all the first words of the U.S. Constitution is WE THE PEOPLE. So who exactly is we the people and who exactly does this judge think the president and congress get their power from. He is effectively saying that we don't have "permission" to ask about someone eligibility to run for the highest office in our very own country..... I have to say I am stunned by this but not overly surprised....
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."
Read the rest here
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79086
Nukeman
10-26-2008, 10:28 AM
I just want to add that by his ruling he is effectively saying that NO private citizen has the right to question ANYTHING to do with the constitutions.
I will reiterate that the first words of OUR Constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE". Not we the congress, we the senate, we the judicial branch, or we the executive branch.
WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Have we just lost all of our power as a free people????
Gaffer
10-26-2008, 10:31 AM
That will get him a consideration for bamas SC picks. The people have no rights.
theHawk
10-26-2008, 10:35 AM
What a shock, a Clinton appointee finds in favor of Obama, and shreds the Constitution while doing it.
crin63
10-26-2008, 10:55 AM
One of the judges other reasons:
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states
Yet in California the Judges rule against the will of the people whenever it suits them.
Missileman
10-26-2008, 11:17 AM
One of the judges other reasons:
Yet in California the Judges rule against the will of the people whenever it suits them.
"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states
He would only be invalidated IF he wasn't qualified and at that point it doesn't matter how many votes he got. WTF is wrong with this judge. He's saying it doesn't matter to him whether he's legal because he's popular.
namvet
10-26-2008, 11:44 AM
the judge was a liberal the Klintons put in
avatar4321
10-26-2008, 02:10 PM
When i heard of the law suit I figured someone would attack it on the standing issue.
Of course, if Democrat candidate, or even any candidate, Republican or third party candidate, brought the suit they might have standing.
When i heard of the law suit I figured someone would attack it on the standing issue.
Of course, if Democrat candidate, or even any candidate, Republican or third party candidate, brought the suit they might have standing.
what is your opinion of the standing issue? seems to me this court relied heavily on the opinion in the mccain lawsuit for standing, which seems to boil down to an actual injury in fact...there doesn't seem to be a redressability issue, only that an actual injury occurred. i thought that even where no injury has occurred, an imminent injury suffices.
also, i take issue with the court concluding that there was no standing because the injury was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters." what is vague here? a foreigner could take the office of the president, i would not call that vague. further, the constitution is clear on who can be president, nothing vague there.
i haven't actually read the ruling, only news clippings, if someone has a link to the ruling, i would appreciate it. thanks
avatar4321
10-26-2008, 05:47 PM
what is your opinion of the standing issue? seems to me this court relied heavily on the opinion in the mccain lawsuit for standing, which seems to boil down to an actual injury in fact...there doesn't seem to be a redressability issue, only that an actual injury occurred. i thought that even where no injury has occurred, an imminent injury suffices.
also, i take issue with the court concluding that there was no standing because the injury was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters." what is vague here? a foreigner could take the office of the president, i would not call that vague. further, the constitution is clear on who can be president, nothing vague there.
i haven't actually read the ruling, only news clippings, if someone has a link to the ruling, i would appreciate it. thanks
Honestly, I don't really have an opinion on this one. I havent read the decision. I don't know much about the facts fo the case. I just know enough that if I was on Obama's side is be arguing a standing issue in most of these suits. But im not mistaken, arent there multiple suits on this issue? Im not even sure which of the many suits this one resolves.
Honestly, I don't really have an opinion on this one. I havent read the decision. I don't know much about the facts fo the case. I just know enough that if I was on Obama's side is be arguing a standing issue in most of these suits. But im not mistaken, arent there multiple suits on this issue? Im not even sure which of the many suits this one resolves.
i believe it's berg's suit, the dem lawyer from PA
April15
10-26-2008, 06:07 PM
One of the judges other reasons:
Yet in California the Judges rule against the will of the people whenever it suits them.You do know that us Californians are special!
namvet
10-26-2008, 06:11 PM
You do know that us Californians are special!
yes we do. your referred to now as a providence.
yes we do. your referred to now as a providence.
this is not canada...
namvet
10-26-2008, 06:45 PM
this is not canada...
fooled us
fooled us
dude, i live here and am married to a canadian
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.