Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.…ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Lincoln must be spinning in his grave. Government of the people by the people for the people has perished from the earth.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Handled right, the Fed District Court throwing out Berg for lack of standing can present a political check-mate “win” on appeal for the anti-Obama side (if not in law, in the Court of Public Opinion). Here’s how: SIMPLY SPREAD AROUND OBAMA’S APPELLATE BRIEF HAVING TO ARGUE AGAINST AN AMERICAN VOTER’S RIGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Should be a PR disaster for the Dems and Obama!!!
Uh, Ted? There’s a reason the Republicans are called The Stupid Party.
The concept of standing is rooted in Article III’s requirement that only “cases” or “controversies” can be heard by the courts. Basically, you don’t always have a right to sue every time a politician does something that pisses you off.
This is the right decision, plain and simple.
And, btw, a similar lawsuit against McCain (that he is ineligible because he wasn’t born on US soil) was dismissed on the same grounds.
I’m glad to discover that whether McCain or Obama are constitutionally qualified to become President is not a “controversy” worthy of the court’s attention.
Yes, thank you, Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law. Been there, done that, got the textbooks in a box.
Just because that’s how the Constitution has been interpreted doesn’t mean it’s the best answer for maintenance of the Republic. Broadening the topic a bit, isn’t it odd how many interpretations of Common Law, the US and state constitutions, and ordinary laws tend to take power away from the individual and give it to government actors. Amazingly consistent, the suspicious mind might think.
Beat me to it, Steve. I was going to note that Daniel is a practicing lawyer, with the PL’s veneration of stare decis, and all that implies.
Yes, we do need some continuity in our law. But when bad or even unconstitutional decisions are allowed to become set in stone by continuity, we end up with a GIGO situation, as perfectly exemplified by Second Amendment law, in which, due to state fear of an armed private citizenry, “interpretations” precisely opposite the plain English language of the Amendment” was permitted to become settled law.
You’re right - it is odd how so much of constitutional interpretation of the document created by the greatest rebels and supporters of individual liberty in our history has been to apportion greater and greater power to the state, and away from the individual and his liberties - liberties that document was designed primarily to protect, preserve, and defend.
Lawyers are extensively trained in the art of ignoring the forest for the trees. And it shows in the dilapidated state of our law today.