Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
American citizens do not have the standing to make sure the Constitution is upheld. I don’t have standing, you don’t have standing, and your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief - the most powerful person in the world.
Thats what I took it to mean, thats why its an immediate appeal.. We all have grounds to question if someone meets the qualifications set forth in the constitution..
Seriously, can someone just state it out in simpleton terms, or does nobody know?
From his response it seems that the judge doesn't CARE that he might not be a citizen, just that the he can't see any harm in a ineligible person being in there. Am I wrong on this?
Look, for any legal action, you have to have standing to file suit.
Suppose your best friend was killed in a car accident due to someone else's negligence. You have no legal standing to sue to recover damages.
As a parent, you have legal standing to sue to recover damages if your child is injured or killed because of another's fault.
However, you have no legal standing to sue to recover damages if one or both of your parents are injured or killed because of another's fault.
You do have legal standing to sue if your spouse is injured or killed.
What happens now depends on how the suit was dismissed. If it was dismissed with prejudice, then Berg cannot refile, he will have to appeal.
If the suit was dismissed without prejudice, then Berg has leave to refile the suit and either show that he has legal standing or present a different theory of the case.
For example, Berg might be able to file Qui Tam under the Federal False Claims Act.
Another thing Berg could do is file a Writ of Mandamus and get a court order to force the Federal Elections Commission to perform their duties under the law and to obtain the original copy of Obama's birth certificate.
Another type of action might be to file to force Obama's name off of the ballot. That would require people in each state to file such action to remove Obama's name from the list of eligible candidates.
Why do people think this does not need to be addressed. It is SO easy so just get the original from Hawaii and shut everyone up.But he won't.
There's enough circumstantial information floating around out there to warrant a closer look in to the claims. The fact that Obama isn't cooperating by just providing the document means he's either being childish about it or he's got something to hide. Again, further confirming the need to investigate.
There's enough story out there combined with Obama's actions to appear suspicious enough to warrant further investigation
Why do people think this does not need to be addressed. It is SO easy so just get the original from Hawaii and shut everyone up.But he won't.
It's not that we think it does not need to be addressed, in many cases, but that we have been well convinced that it i]has[/i] been addressed.
That you will not accept the proof does not mean the proof has not been offered. Federal officials have been satisfied. State officials have verified it. Three different fact-checking groups have verified it.
Given that you, personally, are never going to hold his certification of birth, what would satisfy you?
Berg's lawsuit basically said that he and other voters could be disenfranchised if Obama gets elected and later found to unable to hold the office of President of the United States. His claims are if Obama is removed from office due to him being ineligible then all who voted for him will in fact have their votes removed as well.
The judge ruled that there was no clear harm presented, in other words he couldn't show actual harm coming to himself or to others (in other words he isn't currently being disenfranchised so therefore there is no harm to him right now) so he dismissed the case because it did not have merit (Or in simple terms the lawsuit didn't met the requirements to be heard).
What a lot of you Obama supporters are reading into this is that the issue is settled, it is not. Nowhere does the Judge state that Obama is good to go, he just ruled that the suit as presented didn't meet the requirements to be heard by his courtroom.
Where this goes from here is another story that we will get to read about soon enough I think.
It's not that we think it does not need to be addressed, in many cases, but that we have been well convinced that it i]has[/i] been addressed.
That you will not accept the proof does not mean the proof has not been offered. Federal officials have been satisfied. State officials have verified it. Three different fact-checking groups have verified it.
Given that you, personally, are never going to hold his certification of birth, what would satisfy you?
What proof?? Are you talking about the birth certificate on factcheck that cannot be trusted?? Or are you talking about the this??
Yup - that's right - endorsed Obama earlier in the year.
That means they have no real credibility in supporting Obama or trashing McCain.
Again, if Berg actually has a tape of Obama's grandmother saying she was in the room when Obama was born in Kenya...
Because here's the kicker if he was born in kenya then flown to the US a day or two later - it isn't impossible the newborn was brought to the hospital and they lied about his birth to obtain US citizenship so that he could stay in the US with his mother - who didn't qualify to make her son a natural born US citizen. In such as case he'd get a Hawaiian birth certificate and things would look legit, even to a background check.
All I have been saying - there's enough story out there combined with Obama's actions to appear suspicious enough to warrant further investigation.
If the suit was dismissed without prejudice, then Berg has leave to refile the suit and either show that he has legal standing or present a different theory of the case.
And this is where my disagreement with the ruling comes in. As a US Citizen (ok, I'm assuming Berg is a citizen as I havent heard otherwise) then would he not only have standings to ensure the constitution be upheld, but also an obligation?
IF he was born outside of the US - HE WOULD NOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as his mother didn't not meet the legal requirements. As of yet - no undeniably VALID document has been produced by Obama that I have seen online proving his place of birth beyond a reasonable doubt - especially considering this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=78931
"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."
If the tape is as Berg says - Obama and the DNC is likely ****ed. Why? Well, figure that he's been unwilling to comply with a very simple request and that tape, that all but confirms Berg's contention that Obama is lying out of his ass.
On the otherhand, IMHO, the Indonesian bit is likely bull****. I'm not a lawyer, but it's been discussed here a few times and I tend to agree. There's no merit behind that claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True.