Supremes looking at eligibility, again

[lynnf]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=190745


California lawyer's question referred to court for review


A California attorney who more than a year ago told WND she would go back again and again to the U.S. Supreme Court until she gets an answer on Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has returned to the court's calendar.

...

In two other cases in which penalties were threatened by federal judges on attorneys who brought eligibility challenges both courts backed off when the attorneys pointed out that being subjected to penalties gave them standing to request a hearing on the actual evidence in the case and the discovery of Obama's birth documentation.



...

 

[Matt Collins]

I have to wonder about WND's credibility sometimes. They are kind of like AJ/IW/PP - I am not always sure that their stories are accurate.

 

[angelatc]

I am sure their stories are not always accurate.

 

[anaconda]

Can anyone please explain to me how absolutely every U.S. citizen does not have "standing?" We are all subject to the law of the land. How can we not have "standing?" I'd love to know what the legal theory is with respect to this.

 

[libertybrewcity]

how can judges make attorneys pay penalties for requesting a hearing? makes no sense. You would think some judges would be curious?I bet they have been threatened...

 

[lynnf]

where's your picture with Orly Taitz, Matt?

I have to wonder about WND's credibility sometimes. They are kind of like AJ/IW/PP - I am not always sure that their stories are accurate.

did you even look at or read the story at all, Matt? what particular item are you calling into question? could it be the screen shot that they have in the story of the item on the dockett listed on the SC website (shown here)?

which matches with the actual SC website page shown at this link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10a56.htm

what is it, Matt?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Perhaps those attorneys should not have objected to the penalties, so they could have gotten the incontestable standing needed to finally get the issue argued in court, and the discovery done to get birth documents, if they exist.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Can anyone please explain to me how absolutely every U.S. citizen does not have "standing?" We are all subject to the law of the land. How can we not have "standing?" I'd love to know what the legal theory is with respect to this.

How would you be personally injured or what individual consequences would you suffer by the act of a majority voting for a presidential candidate who is the child of an alien or dual citizen?

Not how would you suffer from potential unknown future presidential policies, which allegedly must conform to the constitution, but the actual act of a majority vote?

I believe a valid argument for standing can be made against a state election authority who placed a child of an alien or dual citizen on a presidential ballot. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and if the law does not have to be followed I am injured because I now live in a society that does not observe a rule of law. I am injured because if the rule of law is not observed there is no possible way I can know what the law is that I am held accountable to if it is not created by a constitutionally delegated legislative authority.

But what do I know. I am not a member of the private lawyer union and there are no people lined up outside my front door wanting to be a party to and/or pay me to initiate any action challenging state election authorities. Best to leave these matters to the experts who are members of the private lawyer unions.

 

[John of Des Moines]

First to get a Supreme Court review four justices have to vote for review. And the two justices BHO put on the bench must recuse themselves - well, in theory at least.

 

[Rael]

 

[lynnf]

what's in YOUR taser?

was that horse tasered?

lynn

 

[Stary Hickory]

Can anyone please explain to me how absolutely every U.S. citizen does not have "standing?" We are all subject to the law of the land. How can we not have "standing?" I'd love to know what the legal theory is with respect to this.

The fact the judge backs off from imposing penalties because he will give standing is very telling. I am sick and tired of this. This needs to be seen through no matter what the outcome.

The courts cannot say people do not have standing when every act Obama does affects us in the most terrible of ways. The court system is not about justice it is only protecting it's own. Quite disgusting. This case needs to be seen through evidence shown and dealt with. It is a disgrace that the current POTUS feels it is beneath him to prove eligibility to those he intends to "rule".

Ridiculous. Again I ask why is this so difficult? There is something going on, I have never seen such a disgraceful cover up before.

 

[foofighter20x]

Can anyone please explain to me how absolutely every U.S. citizen does not have "standing?" We are all subject to the law of the land. How can we not have "standing?" I'd love to know what the legal theory is with respect to this.

It comes from the requirement in Article III of the U.S. Const. that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual "cases or controversies."

Over time, the courts have developed the doctrine of justiciability to help explain the outer limits of their authority.

Essentially, a case must:

1. involve an actual dispute among adverse parties; and,
2. be a case over which the court can fashion some type of effective remedy.

That means:

1. No asking for advisory opinions from the court, nor engaging in collusive suits (where both parties are seeking the same outcome).
2. Disputes must be ripe for resolution (i.e., not so early in the process [called "unripeness," or "being unripe"], where the dispute is speculative or has yet to occur; nor so late that the dispute has become moot [which means the injury has been removed or ceased to exist by the time the court hears it]).
3. Standing requires the following three things:
   • injury-in-fact [you have to demonstrate that you--personally--have actually suffered some specific injury],
   • causation [the person you are suing specifically caused that injury], and
   • redressability [the resolution you seek must be designed to specifically remove the injury or cause it to cease]
4. Courts will refuse to resolve "political questions", i.e.:
   • where no judicial resolution might be found,
   • where resolution would require the court to exercise an inherently legislative or executive power, or
   • where the Constitution has committed resolution of the issue to another branch of the government (for example, when is the nation "at war", or what constitutes "trial" in the Senate after being impeached).

Further, there is a rule against generalized "citizen" grievances. That means your only issue for the court is a undifferentiated or conceptual harm (e.g.: the government isn't following the law).

Obama will have had to have done something that specifically injured YOU.

 

[youngbuck]

So what defines 'injury'?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So what defines 'injury'?

About the only people Obama can directly injure are people who are punished or prosecuted under executive authority for refusing to follow the orders of an unlawful President.

Foo specifically mentioned government not following the law and even though he did not reference my post I would be willing to speculate he would agree the only redress for the average citizen joe is with state election authorities placing unlawful candidates on a Presidential ballot. Which means initiating actions with state election authorities.

If an action is successful against state election authorities and it was proven Obama is not a lawful President, Congress would be under heavy public pressure to impeach.

 

[erowe1]

It is a disgrace that the current POTUS feels it is beneath him to prove eligibility to those he intends to "rule".

Prove to whose satisfaction?

 

[Stary Hickory]

Prove to whose satisfaction?

How about a birth certificate. I mean really? Is it really hard to issue one? Show one? No not at all. How about we recognize the fact that a president will not do this one simple thing despite many millions of Americans harboring serious doubts.....this might be just a tiny clue that a simple gesture such as showing a birth certificate is warranted.

Like I have said many times before, Obama is scum either way this goes. To have what 60-70 million people (44% GOP) question your legitimacy and not make a simple phone call to alleviate these concerns is the epitome of arrogant scumbaggery.

For logic's sake I cannot concieve of why a sitting POTUS would let such a thing happen unless he was hiding something. Really or maybe he likes being an ass, and showing that the US Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to him....I mean we can only wager guesses why this simple process has been thwarted at every conceivable turn. And why tons of money, time, and resources has been devoted to stopping it from happening.

 

[erowe1]

How about a birth certificate. I mean really? Is it really hard to issue one? Show one? No not at all. How about we recognize the fact that a president will not do this one simple thing despite many millions of Americans harboring serious doubts.....this might be just a tiny clue that a simple gesture such as showing a birth certificate is warranted.

What's your basis for all this? I don't see why it matters whether producing a birth certificate is hard or easy, or whether millions of Americans harbor serious doubts. What is it about those things that makes showing a birth certificate "warranted" in any sense that the Supreme Court should be concerned with.

My question was, "Prove to whose satisfaction?". And I'd still like to know what that hurdle is. Does he have to prove it to everyone's satisfaction (which he can never do, no matter what evidence he provides)? Does he have to prove it to the satisfaction of some people (which he has already done)?

I don't get where this birth certificate requirement came from. It's certainly not in the Constitution.

 

[Stary Hickory]

What's your basis for all this? Is a birth certificate a prerequisite for eligibility to be president?

My question was, "Prove to whose satisfaction?". And I'd still like to know what that hurdle is. Does he have to prove it to everyone's satisfaction (which he can never do, no matter what evidence he provides)? Does he have to prove it to the satisfaction of some people (which he has already done)?

I don't get where this birth certificate requirement came from. It's certainly not in the Constitution.

Well at some point you just use logic. A Birth Certificate is as about as good as it gets. Its the only proof we can really get that is official. Why do we even have discussions about it? I mean where is your objection? What are you trying to do or hope to accomplish?

We almost get to the absurd....I mean heck lets continue your logic a little further. Why even show a drivers license? Why show anything. Why not just take people's word at anything. I mean why get a reciept for a purchase? What does it really prove? I mean you could have forged it...so hell let's do away with receipts.

Same thing with banking, why bother with online accounts? What does it matter, the bank or you could just manipulate the accounts....all that informationa and documentation is worthless. Same thing with real estate contracts or any kind of agreement....whats the point? All useless.

This is the line of logic you are using, it in essence says nothing and leads to the most absurd conclusions possible. A BC is not some obscene request, it is required to put kids into school, to get visa's and all sorts of things. They do record these things for a reason, there actually is a purpose.

And let us not forget here we have a man who would prefer that millions and millions of Americans harbor doubts about his legitimacy than make a simple gesture, one that shows compliance under Constitutional Law. Now we can all wonder why he would disresepct so many Americans and refuse this...not only refuse but spend money, time, and effort to stop this and MANY other records from being public.

This is a man who assumes a power which no one gave him, one who thinks he has the right to decide personal matters of the most basic of human rights for us. And he doesn't give a krap about that many Americans.....this is a sad day.

The courts are acutally dropping charges against attorneys to avoid this going to court. They are misusing the "standing" angle to prevent it from every being dealt with. It is obscene and it SHOULD have been resolved long ago...it would have garnered Obama support, had he simply done the right thing and said "I would be more than happy to show a simple piece of paper"....

We have reached absurd and people still try and defend it.

 

[erowe1]

We almost get to the absurd....I mean heck lets continue your logic a little further. Why even show a drivers license? Why show anything.

As far as I know, you don't have to show a drivers license to run for president either.

Am I wrong about that?

If you mean, why do we have to show drivers licenses when we get pulled over for traffic violations, then the answer is because there's a law that specifically says we have to. There is no law that says you have to show a birth certificate to anyone to run for president (or at least there wasn't in 2008--I'm not sure what's come of the various bills introduced in state legislatures to require that since then). It's just something the birthers came up with ad hoc. I don't get why they think the Supreme Court should concern itself with that kind of ad hoc rule that doesn't really exist, but that a bunch of people all of a sudden cooked up and want to pretend it's a law.

If this lady's case revolves around the charge that Obama wasn't born on American soil, then she better be able to prove that he wasn't. Otherwise, she doesn't have a case.