Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship

It was proven this summer that birth certificates can be manufactured just like false IDs can be.  Remember China and the gymnastic team.   I don't believe Obama will ever make it to the White House.  I guess if you have enough money you can do anything you want.  He doesn't have to abide by the Government rules on elections either.  What a joke.  This man has alot charisma.  Big Whoop.  He is part of the Chicago corrupt machine.  God Help all of us. 

He doesn't have to abide by the Government rules on elections either. 

You mean like innocent unless proven guilty?  Rules like that?

touchmenot,

tell it to the judge.

Strange. The judge dismissed on the grounds that someone who does not meet constitutional requirements becoming president is not harmful.

Can we guess this judge's political party?

No, but we can guess yours, jpark.

You don't have to guess mine. I prefer constitutional government to socialism.

You don't have to guess mine. I prefer constitutional government to socialism.

You mean Consitiutional as in "that God dammed piece of paper" as McCain's buddy Bush likes to call it?

No. Constitutional as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. called it.

Can you explain to me what Obama has proposed that is unconsitiutional?

The Federal judiciary is attempting to stay out of the line of fire regarding the election.  They refuse to deal with the merits of the cases proffered, and dismiss them on the grounds of "Standing".    

As with the trial and appeal of Border Guards Ramos and Compean, the Federal judiciary is showing itself to have come politicized, and thus surrendering any aura of legitimacy and prestige. 

There are seven other pending suits on this matter.  

John McCain's birth certificate is fake too.  Everybody knows he isn't a citizen.  He's Panamanian.

Okay?

biggerthebetter,

The point under discussion is not whether Obama or even McCain is a natural citizen of the United States.

The point under discussion is that the judge ruled that the constitutional requirements to serve as president of the United States are irrelevant. The judge essentially said Vladimir Putin can run for president of the United States if he wants to.

Gonna have to disagree with you, jpark. The judge ruled that Berg had insufficient standing to make his case, aside from the fact that Senator Obama is constitutionally eligible to run for and serve as POTUS. The arguments that Berg supplied were deemed inadequate, and are systematically addressed and dismantled in the memorandum released.

Torabu,
From the article above:

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."

If you have information which shows this to be incorrect, link to it or copy it here.

jpark: All that happens if Obama is found ineligible after election is that Joe Biden, an indisputibly natural-born citizen, becomes president. If that disenfranchises anybody, then you can argue that Nixon disenfranchised millions of people by resigning before he could be tried on impeachment charges. Berg doesn't have standing to argue that Obama's name shouldn't be on the ballot because he, personally, will not be damaged in any meaningful way if Obama is later found to be ineligible.

And, BTW, that's not going to happen unless somebody produces proof that he was actually born outside the U.S. If he was born in the U.S., he's a citizen unless he actively renounces his citizenship.

kelvins273,

Keep saying it is unimportant and surely it will become unimportant.

The judge said constitutional requirements are irrelevant because no one will be harmed if constitutional requirements are not met. You are saying the same thing.

Violating the constitution is harmful in and of itself.

Ruling that the constitution is irrelevant is harmful.

Saying anyone with any qualifications or no qualifications can run for president is harmful.

The judge said constitutional requirements are irrelevant because no one will be harmed if constitutional requirements are not met. You are saying the same thing.

That isn't what the judge ruled at all. He ruled that Berg didn't meet the requirements necessary to bring the case before a judge, and that his courtroom, in PA, was not the proper place to hear such an argument if it indeed had merit. Basically, he does not have the authority to make a ruling on the eligibility of Obama's candidacy, since it affects ALL voters, not just those in PA. It was beyond the scope and power of his courtroom - THAT is what was unconstitutional. Hence the part where he "lacked standing to bring the case". You highlighted what is probably the least important aspect of the ruling in your earlier post.

No, that is the most important part of the case.

If the judge chooses to dismiss because his court lack jurisdiction, etc., that is fine.

When he says it doesn't matter, he deprecates the constitution.

I'd love to know where you got your law degree. Because you got ripped off. It's interesting that you chose to say that he "deprecates" the Constitution by following it, though. George Bush deprecates (and defecates on) the Constitution almost daily. Where's your mock outrage at that?

jpark: It would be a good idea if you'd read the pdf of the judge's decision (available here). The judge didn't invalidate the Natural Born Citizen clause. He merely said that Berg couldn't prove concrete, personal harm to himself if Obama is elected president. His decisions on standing reference lots of previous decisions, including a suit brought in New Hampshire to remove McCain from the primary ballot because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. All of his decisions about standing are grounded in long-standing precedents. If you have a problem with the judge's reasoning, your problem really is with the whole judicial system, not just one judge. He didn't pull this stuff out of his butt because he was "in the tank."

Furthermore, the lack of standing doesn't mean there is no remedy if a candidate decides to run illegally. You can complain to the Federal Elections Commission about it. Berg claimed that he had done so and been ignored, but that claim was thrown out because 1) such suits must be brought in the D.C District Court, and 2) Berg didn't show that he had exhausted all administrative options.

It was proven this summer that birth certificates can be manufactured just like false IDs can be.  

The problem with that particular conspiracy angle is that the state of Hawaii has stood behind the birth certificate.  Sure, certificates can be manufactured, but state records?  Is the state of Hawaii itself perpetrating a fraud upon the American people?  Please.

As for the standing issue, the judge appears to have only ruled that individual citizens don't have standing.  That's actually not inconsistent with a whole line of rulings in federal law, such as the lack of standing issues surrounding the NSA surveillance programs from a few years ago.  

Who might have standing?  The state of Hawaii might, if they were going to contest Obama's birth as happening in their state.  Other states might have standing to sue Hawaii to release the certificate so as to verify the legality of the Democratic slate of electors in each state.  (They might alternately sue the DNC to prove Obama is a valid candidate.)  The parties themselves might.  The FEC probably would.  That's just off the top of my head.

It doesn't appear that Berg does.  Kind of ironic that it's usually the Republicans so gung-ho about tort and lawsuit reform crying the hardest about what their reforms have wrought.  Reap what you sow, I suppose.

jpark, #1.14:

Torabu,
From the article above:

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."

If you have information which shows this to be incorrect, link to it or copy it here.

Please don't parse quotes like that; the part you highlighted certainly favours your argument, but if you add in the last part...

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."

So, once again I say: the judge ruled that Berg had insufficient standing to make his case. If you want to argue the point, that's cool, but next time use the entire sentence, rather than leaving out the context to bend the statement's meaning to what you want it to be.

Interesting development.  I had not placed any merit in the theory that Obama was not " Natural Born " within the meaning of the Constitution,  but this makes me think that there very well can be something to it. 

I have to wonder what the judge's price was to dismiss this suit ?  Supreme Court slot, or a sub-cabinet appointment for a son or daughter ?  Whatever it was, he was certainly in a position to name his price, which he seems to have done. 

Meanwhile, the Attorney General, who would have standing to force a judicial decision on the reported massive voter registration fraud in Ohio, and this suit regarding Obama's status as a candidate, is rather silent.   Since there is now a second special prosecutor, rattling around in the Justice Department,  the AG likely just wants to end his tenure without being indited for anything.    

Le me get this straight.  Obama has a US passport and likely carries federal security clearance, both of which require him to submit his birth certificate to the US government; his birth certificate has been submitted to independent, non-partisan fact-checking organizations and authenticated; the state of Hawaii confirms the birth certificate as authentic; and a US federal judge threw out the case as frivolous.

But all of this convinces you that there's "something to it"?  Truly amazing deductive ability, I suppose.  (That was sarcasm, son, keep up.)

clutching at straws

It doesn't matter what this Judge says.

The United States Secret Service has determined that Barack Obama is elegible to run for the office of the President of The United States of America.

and they are the only ones that matter .... sheesh, doesn't anyone read the books by Tom Clancy?

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."

Jpark,

It's how the legal proceedings work.  Harm to voters has to be proven to give the case any legal standing.  The case - if Berg had won it - would have simply proved that Obama is a natural born citizen.  So either way, no harm to the voters as Obama would have been eligible either way.

Especially since Obama has to offer tons of paperwork to simply just run for President of the United States, including various forms of proof that he's a United States citizen. 

It's all incredibly trivial and a nuissance.  Philip J Berg has already proven himself a nutjob after the 9/11 truther fiasco and he's just trying to earn an extra buck as we can see plainly on his website.

arcanebliss,

The judge dismissing the case is not the issue. There are many reasons to dismiss a case.

Dismissing it because violations of the constitutional requirements for the presidency are irrelevant and harm no one is to rule that the constitution is irrelevant and can be violated with impunity.

I did not believe that Berg would show that Obama was not a natural US citizen. That is not the issue I was discussing. Everyone is intent in redirecting the conversation to other issues. The issue I am commenting on is only that the judge ruled that the constitution is irrelevant and than no one would be harmed if it is violated.

jpark
Dismissing it because violations of the constitutional requirements for the presidency are irrelevant and harm no one is to rule that the constitution is irrelevant and can be violated with impunity.

There would not be violations to the constitutional requirements for the presidency, there's the flaw in your argument.

arcanebliss,

The judge did not rule that Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S. If he had, your argument might mean something.

Even if he had ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen of the U.S., ruling that violating the constitutional requirements for president is irrelevant would still be wrong.

The judge doesn't have to rule that, he dismissed the case altogether due to the trivial-ness of the suit presented - as he stated very clearly. You're trying to spin his words to state that he said the consitution "doesn't matter".

His own words. No spin.

The Judge did not state "the constitution is irrelevant and can be violated with impunity".

The Judge did not state "the constitution is irrelevant and can be violated with impunity".

Ahem. Again, this is what the Judge said:

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."

He said that there is no harm for an ineligible candidate to run/be elected to the presidency.

In effect, he said the constitutional requirements don't matter. (No harm means doesn't matter).

And your law degree was issued from where Jpark?

Ken,

Spin University, of course.

I noticed jpark decided to ignore my last comment. *eye roll* The old strategy of "when proven wrong, just pretend the evidence isn't there and keep going". Sort of like what Berg is doing by taking this case to the Supreme Court, LOL.

Ken Pac NW,

It takes a law degree to understand the plain statements of a lawyer?

(Hint: He used no arcane legal words except the well understood word 'standing'.)

When you became a lawyer, Ken, did everyone else suddenly become stupid?

Torabu

I noticed jpark decided to ignore my last comment. *eye roll* The old strategy of "when proven wrong, just pretend the evidence isn't there and keep going". Sort of like what Berg is doing by taking this case to the Supreme Court, LOL.

Torabu,

Did you read the lawsuit?  Berg had the audacity to cite text from unsupported far-right blogs and WIKIPEDIA. lol!  The man is incredible.  Were you paying mind to his 9/11 truther mission?  He's a complete nutcase.

In effect, he said the constitutional requirements don't matter. (No harm means doesn't matter).

You were kind enough to post what the judge actually said... Then you offered YOUR interpretation of what he said.

@arcanebliss: I did read a good portion of it, but unfortunately didn't have the time to reach the very end. I did, however, notice the wikipedia portion and a few other sources that didn't really hold up in the context he was attempting to place them in. I actually didn't even know about the guy until this latest gong show. d:

I also noticed that jpark handily ignored me again, haha.

For Touchmenot..... Open your eyes.....Barack will be our next Leader and President!

Sandy K

jpark's been ignoring a lot of stuff. The judge never said that violations of the Constitution are okay or pose no problems. He said that the definition of "harm" for purposes of establishing standing is narrower than the common understanding of the word. Basically, since electing an ineligible candidate for president doesn't physically injure Mr. Berg, cause him to lose property, or interfere with any defined legal right, he can't sue over that possiblilty in civil court. As I've mentioned previously, he does have other options to address the problem, which he doesn't appear to have exhausted. Instead, he wants to keep the lawsuit going, apparently because lawsuits get more publicity than FEC complaints.

kelvins273,

I am not ignoring anything.

The judge may say 500 things which are true and reasonable, but when he says that violations of the constitutional requirements for office are irrelevant, he is wrong. When he is a federal judge, his words mean something.

jpark

I'm not an attorney.  I just want to say that up front.  Now, here is my understanding of the judges ruling.

Berg filed a lawsuit, and the judge ruled on the "specifics" of that suit.  What you seem to be trying to do is draw a much broader conclusion than the ruling encompasses. 

The judge did NOT say that "violations of the constitutional requirements are irrelevant".  He said, in this specific case, this one and only case filed by Berg, is dismissed based on... (full ruling).

The language of law is confusing for most of us, (ever try to understand your credit card agreement!? lol), but the job of the judge is to look at what is presented to him/her and rule on the "facts" presented.

The fact that you honestly believe Obama isn't eligible to run for or serve as president doesn't change the "fact" that he IS, unless someone can PROVE otherwise.  So it's incumbent upon Berg, (or whomever is trying to make the case), to PROVE that Obama is ineligible.  So far there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence supporting his case.  If Berg has such evidence, he did a poor job in presenting the case because the judge was able to make his decision based not on the evidence, but on the procedure.

Berg is making a very nice living with the contributions he's collecting on his website.

Ken Pac NW,

The fact that you honestly believe Obama isn't eligible to run for or serve as president doesn't change the "fact" that he IS, unless someone can PROVE otherwise.

I have said no such thing. I am taking issue with the federal judges statements. Obama's qualifications for the presidency is an issue I don't care to dispute since I lack verifiable information.

Let's see if I can simplify this for jpark:

Saying that electing an ineligible president doesn't harm Mr. Berg enough to give him standing doesn't mean that nobody is harmed at all by that happening. Nor does it mean that Article II of the Constitution doesn't mean anything, since there are other ways to enforce the Natural Born Citizen clause.

Let's see if I can simplify this for jpark:

Saying that electing an ineligible president doesn't harm Mr. Berg enough to give him standing doesn't mean that nobody is harmed at all by that happening.

Since that is not what the judge said and is not what we have been discussing, why do you name me when you divert the conversation to something else?

Well, finally we get to the source of our disagreement. That's exactly what the judge said. The quote you referenced was only about the issue of legal standing. It wasn't a statement about whether Article II "matters" or not.

kelvins273,

This is the third time I have quoted directly from the beginning of this article.

Read what the judge said -- not what you want to imply that the judge said or what you wish I had said.

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."

The judge said that an ineligible candidate not only would not harm Berg, it would not harm anyone.

The judge said that it was unimportant. Didn't matter. The constitution doesn't matter and violating it makes no difference and harms no one.

I can say it many more ways, but the judges own words are sufficient.

jpark

I give up.  Why don't you make a donation to Berg so he can carry on with the "good fight".

See you in appeals court!

Ken Pac NW,

Why do you insist on redirecting the discussion and attributing a position to me that I have not expressed?

I have no desire to donate to Berg. I don't care about his lawsuit.

I have only commented on a federal judge stating in his ruling that the constitution doesn't matter.

Fine, whatever jpark.

In your opinion, this judge says the constitution doesn't matter.  I disagree with your conclusion.  Let's just agree to disagree and let it go.

One more try:

I haven't been quoting from the pdf because my pdf reader won't let me copy and paste from this document. But I'm going to type out the context of jpark's infamous quote in the original decision.

Plaintiff's allegations of harm in the instant case suffer from the same fundamental flaws as the plaintiffs' allegations in Hollander and Jones: Plaintiff's stake is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters. Plaintiff acknowledges as much in the Amended Complaint when he avers that he and "other Democratic Americans" (Doc. No. 14-2 ¶7) will experience irreperable harm. This harm is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters. See Becker, 230 F.3d at 390 (holding that voter-plaintiffs' "concern for corruption of the political process 'is not only widely shared, but is also of an abstract and indefinite nature,' comparable to the 'common concern for obedience to law'" (quoting FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 23 (1998))).

The judge is not saying that nobody is ever harmed, only that average voters aren't harmed in a concrete and individualized enough way to sue. He doesn't say that nobody can ever sue over this issue. The door is open for other candidates to sue, because they would have been directly harmed by the victory of an ineligible candidate. Your problem is that you're broadly reading a sentence that was meant to be interpreted narrowly.

kelvins273,

One more try.

The judge is not saying that nobody is ever harmed, only that average voters aren't harmed in a concrete and individualized enough way to sue. He doesn't say that nobody can ever sue over this issue. The door is open for other candidates to sue, because they would have been directly harmed by the victory of an ineligible candidate. Your problem is that you're broadly reading a sentence that was meant to be interpreted narrowly.

Yes. The judge is saying that electing a President who does not meet the constitutional requirements does no harm. It is so insignificant that there is no cause for legal action.

I'm going to give it a try again, everyone.

jpark, watch closely...

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."

Focus on that highlighted bit and reflect upon it for a while. I'll even help you out a little bit.

Confer v.

to bestow upon as a gift, favour, honour, etc.: to confer a degree on a graduate.

To spell it out slowly... Any harm caused by the ineligibility of a candidate is too vague a concept to [emphasis, here] give standing to an individual voter. That sentence gave no mention to the constitution or whether violating the constitution is acceptable or not.

Are we on the same page yet?

No, we are not on the same page. The judge can refuse to hear the case. The judge can dismiss the case. The judge can say that Berg lacks standing. All that is OK.

The judge went on to say that '... any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."'.

No harm or insignificant harm.

Violating the constitution is irrelevant. Unimportant. A single individual cannot claim sufficient harm for the case and all the people in America would not suffer sufficient harm for the case to be heard.

You can keep saying all day and all month that the judge did not say what he said. We have both quoted him and he did say it.

Yes. The judge is saying that electing a President who does not meet the constitutional requirements does no harm. It is so insignificant that there is no cause for legal action.

Only if your only interest in the election is as a voter. This is where I wish I could copy and paste from that pdf so I could quickly quote the whole section on standing. However, in my quote you have the key sentences: "Plaintiff's stake is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters" and "See Becker, 230 F.3d at 390 (holding that voter-plaintiffs' "concern for corruption of the political process 'is not only widely shared, but is also of an abstract and indefinite nature,' comparable to the 'common concern for obedience to law.'" The deal is that the universal concern that laws should be followed doesn't give any John or Jane Doe the right to sue over crimes which don't directly harm them.

Similarly, Berg's alleged harm that the judge is refuting in that paragraph is, basically, that as a citizen he would be offended to see an ineligible candidate elected president. Well, lots of people would be offended if a burglar robbed their next-door neighbor, but they couldn't sue in civil court for it. This is the same principle in action.

Within the context of the whole paragraph, much less the whole section of the ruling, it's obvious that the line about "any and all voters" means "any person who is just a voter, as opposed to a candidate, public official, etc." I'm not sure why you keep insisting on quoting that line completely out of context. Maybe you're just doing this for the lulz, since all you do is keep repeating your position without putting forth any arguments to refute your opponents. If so, congratulations. You've successfully trolled me and a couple of other Newsviners for a couple of days now.

I am not trolling you and you should not use such accusations so easily.

It is obvious that the constitution and violations of the constitution mean no more to you than to that judge. That is OK for you. As a judge, he has an obligation to uphold the constitution. Stating that the constitution doesn't matter and that violations of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is irrelevant is not something a judge should do.

You can argue for a week that the constitution doesn't matter and that the judges words don't matter -- they still do matter.

jpark, when you choose to stop ignoring the last eight words in that sentence, you'll understand that the judge was not referring to whether it was bad or not to violate the constitution. Hm.. let's see if I can make the quote more clear...

For hypothetical purposes, the harm caused to an individual via a candidate's ineligibility is huge. Gigantic. One of the worst things ever. It's still not enough to confer standing to Berg. Simply put, Berg claiming that "harm" as reason to obtain standing is not deemed to be valid by the judge.

It's a matter of relationship. The harm caused is too attenuated (insignificant) to confer (give) standing, but that doesn't mean the harm is insignificant in itself. I'll try an analogy now.

There's a car you really like that costs $100,000. You only have $90,000. You argue, "I should have this car because $90,000 is a lot of money." And it is. However, the car dealer says, "Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's not enough to buy this car." He subsequently rejects your offer.

Now, replace money with harm, car with standing, you with Berg, and car dealer with judge. Ta-da. Are you fully understanding the quote yet? If not, I'm going to get worried that I will be incapable of explaining; I don't know how I'd be able to explain any better than I have already.

Saying I don't understand doesn't change the argument. I do understand. I disagree.

If the judge says 'You have no standing', that is OK.
If the judge says 'Wrong court', that is OK.
If the judge says 'This should be presented as a class action', that is OK.
If the judge says 'You should present your complaint to the election commission', that is OK.
If the judge says 'You have failed to present your case and I am summarily dismissing it', that is OK.

But when the judge also says, 'Besides, the complaint you present is just not that important', that is not OK.

What it difficult to understand is what such a ruling is so staunchly defended.

Okay, fine. You think that outrage over the breach of the Constitution should be enough to give any person standing in civil court. However, you've been acting like the ruling on standing is just something the judge made up, which plays into the hands of people who think he's in the tank for Obama. Whether you agree or disagree with the judge's declaration, he's able to cite quite a few precedents for it. It wasn't the action of a rogue judge; it's a feature of the judicial system. Now, if you want to argue that the rules of the judicial system should be changed so that abstract concerns about the law do automatically confer standing, that's a separate debate.

kelvins273,

You keep saying I don't like the ruling. I don't care at all about the ruling. The judge did his job and issued a ruling.

I take issue with his statements which are not necessary for his ruling. That is all.

But when the judge also says, 'Besides, the complaint you present is just not that important', that is not OK.

He never said that, though. That's the thing. That's why you have so many people defending the judge in this thread. The quote you use to imply he said the complaint wasn't important was actually a statement explaining why Berg was not given standing. The statement explained that Berg's argument was not strong enough to offer him standing. That is all.

I have to say that all my statements apply even just to that one statement about standing. That is backed up by years of precedent. It is your right to think that abstract concerns about corruption and lawbreaking *should* give a person standing, but the concept isn't something the judge just came up with in this case.

And to add to Torabu's point: A specific example given in the decision was the fact that an ordinary citizen can't sue the police department if somebody else is a victim of police brutality. That doesn't mean that police brutality doesn't matter. It just means that only the direct victims can sue over it (and of course the officers can be disciplined and criminally prosectued).

Torabu & kelvins273,

So you are saying that he lacks standing specifically because there is no harm.

That is worse than just saying that there is no harm. Basing the decision on the lack of harm is worse.

So who might be harmed sufficiently to file suit and be heard when the constitution is violated?

You try to create an analogy that I cannot sue the police if the police harm someone else. Of course not. But the analogy fails. The police are not harming everyone.

Since the constitution is the basis of law for everyone, it is either important for everyone or it is unimportant for everyone.

So you are saying that he lacks standing specifically because there is no harm.

No, that's not what we're saying. My goodness. We're saying what the Judge is saying: using harm as an argument isn't enough to give standing. You need more than a vague concept like "harm" (when it comes to voting for a specific candidate) to have a lawsuit.

You try to create an analogy that I cannot sue the police if the police harm someone else. Of course not. But the analogy fails. The police are not harming everyone.

That's an entirely different kind of "harm" than what Berg is using to make his case. Berg isn't being physically injured. He's making up some abstract concept that somehow, someone will be "hurt" because (for the sake of a hypothetical argument, we'll assume he's ineligible) Senator Obama is running for POTUS. Just exactly what does that mean? How does someone get harmed, hurt, injured, whatever describer you want to use, when an ineligible candidate is on the ticket? Maybe you'll argue, "well, the people that vote for him will get disenfranchised." Okay, but then they're disenfranchised, not harmed. Just what is harmed?

This is the counter-argument the judge used, building it with examples and sources to systematically dismantle this "harmed" argument. In conclusion, he ruled:

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."

The judge did not even give mention to the Constitution, whether it was violated or not, or whether he thought there was this "harm" or not. For all he knew, as do we, there could be tremendous amounts of this "harm". The argument Berg gave simply wasn't enough to sell the concept (or even describe what the heck he meant by harm, if I'm not mistaken).

Actually, as I understand the pdf (which disappeared when I upgraded to the new version of Ubuntu), if Berg was able to show that he was actually disenfranchised, he would have standing because interfering with a constitutional right is sufficient harm to give standing. However, it's hard to see how Democrats would be disenfranchised by having one of their own, whom they voted for (albeit as vice president) ascend to the presidency.

And that's pretty much how it was, if I remember correctly, Kelvins. In afterthought, bringing that up would have probably been more effective than me defending the judge's statement at face value. Lesson learned. :p

Newswhiners is more like it.

well nearing, I don't think too many will be whining until later if he gets elected and then has to break the sad news to the people when he can't deliver all the promises he's making. Only time will tell. I really hope he does a good job myself IF he gets elected. I hope he proves all of the undecided voters and Republicans wrong.

I think it's honest to say that NO ONE wants a bad president. We are suppose to defend our Commander in Chief of this country. I am a Democrat but I am also undecided at this point. And which ever candidate DOES get in, he's going to be stepping into one big mess either way....not only with our economic concerns, but with other countries who really don't like us very much.....like Iran? What doesn't set to well with me, is that Mr. Obama is willing to sit down with these Terrorist Leaders with no pre-conditions being met first. Honestly, it makes me wonder what THOSE leaders thought about Obama and his experience when agreed to that. Makes you wonder. But then again, he can always change his mind about that and for our sakes, I hope he does.

Don't worry.  McCain wouldn't be able to keep any promises either.  Plus, we don't even really know where he stands on any issues since he was liberal back in 2000 and is right wing now.  He could be a communist for all we know...he did choose to live with the Vietcong for a while.

I'm sorry, Proud2.... but I have to respectfully disagree with you... I think it is going to be paramount to our success in repairing our nation, that we repair our relations with other countries. And that includes countries with whom we have great ideological differences. We need a leader who will know how to engage in dialogue with them to find common ground and heal much of the damage that has been done these past 8 years. I believe that Barack will be able to reach out to other nations and still hold fast on the principles that we embrace. At the same time, we need to show respect to other nations ( even if we don't share their views); find ways of repairing relations with them; and find ways to make our views known in a way that other nations will respect our vantage point. Psych 101- you can't repair relations without communication. And that hasn't happened in a very long time. I respect Barack for wanting to take the high road, and I hope that other nations will join us on that path. America has led the way in the past, and it can be, as such , once again. The naysayers were wrong on this lawsuit, and they will be proven wrong on their assertion that Obama can't lead. He'll be great leader, because he has shown that he knows the correct way to engage with other people. Take heart. You'll see.

I quoted a few phrases here and there from Garrison Keillor in a previous article. When speaking of the Republicans and what they offer to America right now, this is one of the things he said:

*'They won't get it until they lose their homes and find themselves standing in a cold, hard rain...'

(*Republican Party)

Just watch:  I wonder how long it will take to see a post claiming that the judge is "in the tank" for Obama

Can we guess this judge's political party?

And the prize goes to jparks!

So you agree with the judge that constitutional requirements are irrelevant?

So you agree with the judge that constitutional requirements are irrelevant?

I agree in the rule of law.  You?

Absolutely. Wouldn't it be nice if the judge agreed with us?

The FBI gave Obama and McCain thorough background checks and they both were allowed to join the U.S. Senate.  Now, I'm of the opinion that McCain shouldn't have been able to join, since he chose to live with the Viet Cong and gave them secrets willingly.  But hey.  The FBI said he was okay, so I'll accept it.

biggerthebetter,

The requirements to serve in the Congress is not the same as the requirements to serve as President of the United States.

The requirements to serve in the Congress is not the same as the requirements to serve as President of the United States.

No, but federal background checks for security clearance at all levels requires a valid US birth certificate.  Obama, as a member of the foreign relations committee, very likely has gone through such a check as a condition for his participation on that committee.  Background checks for security clearance are normally performed by the FBI.

That even ignores the fact that Obama has a US passport.  How do I know for sure?  Remember that his US passport files were broken into this past spring (along with Hillary's and McCain's).  A state-issued birth certificate is required to obtain a US passport. 

So Obama has had to submit his birth certificate to the federal government at least twice, and in both cases it appears it was determined to be valid.  Ipso facto Obama's certificate is likely valid and real.

Obama's birth certificate may be genuine, or it may very well be that it wasn't challenged and vetted the way that the court is being asked to do.   

As a practical matter, the State Dept. employee who processed Obama's passport application would have little benefit in challenging the validity of his birth certificate, even if suspecting it wasn't valid.  And a great deal to lose in angering a sitting US Senator. 

One has to think that if the certificate was indeed valid, that it would have been submitted to the court.   

Obama's birth certificate may be genuine, or it may very well be that it wasn't challenged and vetted the way that the court is being asked to do.   

How, exactly, do you suppose the court would have vetted the certificate?  Oh, that's right, they would call the Hawaii department of health, and ask, "Hey, do you have a record of this certificate?"  And Hawaii, which has already publicly stated the certificate is real, would have said, "Yup."  Case closed.

As a practical matter, the State Dept. employee who processed Obama's passport application would have little benefit in challenging the validity of his birth certificate, even if suspecting it wasn't valid. And a great deal to lose in angering a sitting US Senator. 

That's a nice story, but Obama probably had his US passport before he was a sitting Senator.  Remember that he has a fairly varied international background, dating at least from when he was a child. 

You also conveniently choose to ignore the likely security clearance he has to sustain as a member of the foreign relations committee.

One has to think that if the certificate was indeed valid, that it would have been submitted to the court.

One doesn't have to think that.  This was a frivolous lawsuit from a conspiracy theorist and 9/11 "truther".  It would have been silly to engage in such a suit when it was clearly frivolous; Obama did the right thing to have the suit dismissed.

Spiffie -- if you're single, I think I'm in love!!!  LOL

send a message to the newsvine.  it worked when he was godcandle.

Actually, it shouldn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, or Third Party voter, when it comes to being concerned that SOMEONE would try to run as President "if" it was illegal for him to do so according to the Constitution. If it was a Republican who was being accused, everyone here just about would be jumping on it and you know you would.   And that point is so MUTE. Like I said....the point is, that WHOEVER runs for office for the Presidency, should be checked out, IF information came forward that might raise eyebrows. Any GOOD lawyer or even a BAD lawyer....wouldn't be much of a lawyer to ignore it. Unless of course, they are biased and they ignore it purposely.

Thanks to "nearing"....we got a good link to go to about the case being dropped...thanks nearing.  I had not read it until I logged on this evening.

proud2banamerican, it's moot, not mute. One means irrelevant, of no significance. The other means deaf or silent.

Obama was born in Hawaii. Last I checked, it is one of the 50 states. You ask McCain and he will tell you that this claim that Obama is not a natural born American is ridiculous.

thanks for the spelling correction Mark. I just really didn't want to go hunt down the dictionary to get it. I knew the two variations.

Yes Mark, "nearing" has already given an article about the case being dropped. Lets hope Mr. Berg will not try to appeal it....he'll be wasting his time.

There are, of course, seven other lawsuits pending in various states in this matter.  And as has been observed regarding Ohio, if you don't like the verdict, you go higher in the system.

he mentioned something about the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in his documentary. Hope he'll just leave it alone  now and not keep dragging it in the mud.

I hope so too. Unless the judge in this case has horribly misread all those cases he cited, he probably doesn't have a chance of having this ruling overturned.

I agree.

More like followers have yet more legal evidence to throw back at the nay-sayers. I'd contest that their excitement is because their job just became a little easier.

Based on a lack of your cohorts, BOR, I'd say that most semi-intelligent Republicans who made a big deal about this are eager to sweep it under the rug. Obama supporters celebrating your loss tends to keep it in the news.

RNoel-525230

see #10

before you say stupid stuff

Republicans who made a big deal about this are eager to sweep it under the rug. 

As they do with every lie or BS story they conjure up about Obama that is proven false. Notice not a one of them has said one word after the lunatic "B" girl confessed to what most educated people already knew her story to be, a lie. They were in a frenzied, foaming at the mouth, mob mentality state, until the truth came out.

see #10

before you say stupid stuff

I've seen your posting history, Bill O'Reilly(derline).

RNoel-525230

This is because I just realized that Obama is like me:

He is a Borderline person.

I did some research on Factcheck.org. Annenberg foundation. Both Obama and Ayers sat on their board. What??? I don't trust any news or fact finding organization now.

I heard that "coloaz" on Mr. Berg's documentary. He's beating a dead horse now if he continues with an appeal process.

No.

The children of US military families born while the family is stationed abroad are US citizens.

I suspect that the reason that the constitutional law prof didn't submit his vault birth certificate is that he's only too aware that he isn't legally eligible, and that his documentation won't hold up under scrutiny.  I'm operating under "Occum's Razor ".

I'm operating under "Occum's Razor ".

Ha.  No, you really aren't.  You're continuing to spiral into the realm of conspiracy theories, with layer upon layer of rationalizations to support a predetermined and desired outcome.  At this point, for Obama to be lying, his family would have to be lying, the FactCheck and Politifact organizations would have to be lying, the state of Hawaii would have to be lying, this judge would have to be "on the take" to Obama, the US passport agency would have had to have made a mistake, and (probably) the FBI would have to be unaware a non-citizen claiming to be a citizen would have to be sitting on the Senate Foreign Relations committee with access to sensitive data.

How is that Occam's razor?

How is that Occam's razor?

It's not. It's simply irrational fear.

I've pretty much put the issue with his citizenship on the back burner unless new evidence comes to light. I could personally care LESS if he's white OR black. This nation is in serious trouble. I think MOST people just really want to see SOMEONE get into office that will love this country, as well as defend it with every fiber of it's being. And I think it's safe to say that NONE of us want to see another depression in this country like the one of 1929. This is not a racial issue and if it is....it SHOULDN'T BE! I get so tired of hearing about RACE and people keep throwing it in our faces. They blame EVERYTHING on race when some issue comes up where a black or white person is being defended one against the other. THAT card has been played so much....it's sickening.

I'm personally ready to move on.

The real issues at hand, are what this nation is going to be facing WHEN our new President takes office and HOW it's going to effect not only US....but the world. If people want to keep whining and complaining and if they want to keep making this election about RACE....WE CAN'T STOP THEM. But we can certainly ignore it and not give it the time of day....like they want.