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.
Grades certainly don't indicate intelligence. All my freshman grades in college indicate is that I had a real good time and wasn't very interested in studying that first year. I changed.
These spurious lawsuits and appeals will not be heard for reason that there is no person that would have standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility; and that these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). However, such is not the case in the current actions disputing President Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case; and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed and the appeals denied.
In the final analysis, only Congress has the authority to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States under the Constitution; and on January 8, 2009, the Congress, in joint session, certified his election by the Electoral College without objection. There is the end of the matter.
These spurious lawsuits and appeals will not be heard for reason that there is no person that would have standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility; and that these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). However, such is not the case in the current actions disputing President Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case; and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed and the appeals denied.
In the final analysis, only Congress has the authority to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States under the Constitution; and on January 8, 2009, the Congress, in joint session, certified his election by the Electoral College without objection. There is the end of the matter.
This is great. But you'll have to dumb it down a little for TRUEGRITT.
Whether Obama was born in Kenya, Hawaii, or Timbuktu doesn't matter at this point. He's President of the United States and no organization can remove him from office except the Congress through impeachment. The RW nuts are just going to have to suck it up and endure.
These spurious lawsuits and appeals will not be heard for reason that there is no person that would have standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility; and that these actions only beg the question that standing exists independent of prudential rules that bar one from asserting the constitutional rights of others not before the court. Under the Constitution, the federal courts are prohibited from giving advisory opinions; there has to be an actual case or controversy involving a real party in interest with a justiciable claim ripe for adjudication, and not just some speculative, generalized interest of all citizens, even though the matter may touch on federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In this, standing is to be determined by the courts as an issue pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has the authority to enact law conferring standing directly, subject to separation-of-powers limitations. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). However, such is not the case in the current actions disputing President Obama’s citizenship status and eligibility under the Constitution. To put it simply: without a party with standing to sue, there is no case; and, consequently, the actions must be dismissed and the appeals denied.
In the final analysis, only Congress has the authority to challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States under the Constitution; and on January 8, 2009, the Congress, in joint session, certified his election by the Electoral College without objection. There is the end of the matter.
Good post, I like it when someone comes to the table with more than words. I wikied this case and here is a passage from what I found: Opinion of the Court
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, held that Congress has, by statute, allowed "any party aggrieved by an order of the Commission" to file a suit, which is a broad grant; not getting the requested information is an "injury in fact" just like the denial of any other information which is statutorily required to be provided to citizens by the government. The grievance is a "generalized grievance," but the harm is concrete enough to overcome this, and the harm is fairly traceable to the FEC – even though the FEC may find other grounds not to make AIPAC provide the info.
The Court distinguished this case from lawsuits where an individual seeks relief based on mere taxpayer standing - an insufficient ground for standing to sue. It instead employed a "zone of interests test," asking whether the injury asserted fell into the zone of interests protected by the statute.
I added the bold part, but what do you think of what I have posted? You seem to be well versed in these matters so your explanation would be appreciated.
Amazing there are a large number of frivolous lawsuits against Obama already.
They're trying to "Clinton" him already.
Yes, nice how an entire faction of our country is trying to take up every moment of their own president's time with stuff like this, rather than addressing things like, oh, I don't know, war (I mean...occupation), a cancer-riddled economy, etc.
"Country first" my *ss. Grow up, people, there are bigger fish to fry here.
This is great. But you'll have to dumb it down a little for TRUEGRITT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
Whether Obama was born in Kenya, Hawaii, or Timbuktu doesn't matter at this point. He's President of the United States and no organization can remove him from office except the Congress through impeachment. The RW nuts are just going to have to suck it up and endure.
You may be right, but I still think that the proper vetting of candidates must be addressed so we do not have this problem again. The SCOTUS needs to clearly define Natural born and someone needs to check and double check to see that they are in fact eligible.
I understand your feelings on the matter and I would appreciate your finding the tolerance for those who differ in opinion from you and not call names. I am not a RW nut, I am a liberal who strongly believes in the strict interpretation of constitution.
I think to many people have forgot why and how we were able to have this most precious document. many people have died defending it and I don't want people to forget that, or what the document means to the very life of this great nation.
Yes, nice how an entire faction of our country is trying to take up every moment of their own president's time with stuff like this, rather than addressing things like, oh, I don't know, war (I mean...occupation), a cancer-riddled economy, etc.
"Country first" my *ss. Grow up, people, there are bigger fish to fry here.
Why do so many of you have to get derogatory with your replies? This is a forum for discussion of Politics, and controversies, is it not? If this subject angers you or you feel it has no merit then move on, find something that you can discuss without anger and contemptuous retorts.
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.
Grow up, people, there are bigger fish to fry here.