Berg V. Obama et al re: Citizenship

[Brick]

I was just watching Huckabee on Fox and saw a message go by on the lower screen ticker.

The judge in the case has dismissed the suit, claiming that Philip Berg did not have standing to bring the suit to begin with.

Need to search for confirmation.

Found this Associated Press Article at 20:51 25 Oct 2008:

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship
5 hours ago

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — 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."

Can you believe that? Individual voters would not be harmed by the Unconstitutional act of an ineligible person becoming President. Damn we really need more judges like this guy! AFAIC Every U.S. citizen should have standing in this kind of suit!

[Ramtuff]

Yup, it was dismissed. Berg now plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. He has a website for this...http://ObamaCrimes.com

[pirateron]

wonder if the Obama crusade got to the judge? $$$$$$$$$$

[Stooperzero]

Just remember, He has to be out of the "way" so Hillary has a clean shot in 2012....................

[Mr_Tom]

"too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

Can someone explain this? Was the judge saying something about voters don't care?

Thx,

tom

[Ramtuff]

Originally Posted by pirateron

wonder if the Obama crusade got to the judge? $$$$$$$$$$

The thought has crossed my mind...either Obama or the DNC. I also find it interesting that the judge didn't dismiss the case based upon the subject of the lawsuit.

[Morel42]

Err.. Although I support the judgement.. What a stupid ass reason to do so..

Oy...

[awkx]

Originally Posted by Brick

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."

Can you believe that? Individual voters would not be harmed by the Unconstitutional act of an ineligible person becoming President. Damn we really need more judges like this guy! AFAIC Every U.S. citizen should have standing in this kind of suit!

I for one think the judge reached the right result in this case. The judiciary branch does not have the authority to decide any and all questions presented to it. Indeed, it is constitutionally barred from hearing something that is not an "actual case or controversy" (Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 1):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Additionally, common-law doctrine requires a particularized injury (either existing or imminent), not merely a generalized, vague, attentuated injury shared among many people. The plaintiff in this case fails to claim a particularized injury, so his case is dismissed for lack of standing.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tom

"too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

Can someone explain this? Was the judge saying something about voters don't care?

Thx,

tom

No the judge was saying that he (the Judge) doesn't care abot the VOTERS!

[crakkajakka15]

this guy better watch out he might find a bullet with his name on it...but Obama is a socialist!