Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.

Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.

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."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081025/D941NCJG0.html

[Danno 1,228]

I saw that coming,

My hunch is .. while there may or may not be merit to the claim (after all if he had a birth cert, why not just produce it to end the ongoing story), this whole things was a money maker for "Berg" the Lawyer making the claim in court.

who knows how many saps when to his web-site and hit the "donation" icon.

Hell the guy was probably just making money off the traffic coming to his site.

Lets face it if Obama came out today and said:

"It's true, I was born in Kenya"

Nothing would change.

The people who love him would not care and the GOP is too damaged to do anything.

[natty bumppo 297]

Court is in session on a Friday night?

O & Co. must have filed an EPO ...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Too bad, I thought he might get deported before the election.

[Ling Ling 22]

Hmmmmmm, sounds like a FRIVOLOUS law suit.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Too bad, I thought he might get deported before the election.

lol

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Too bad, I thought he might get deported before the election.

lol

[akdiver 3]

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."

How can this possibly be? It's the same as saying that the constitutional requirements for office simply do not matter.

Judge the merits of the case - if he is eligible, or not eligible, then fine - but to simply say that, in effect, the constitution doesn't matter is ridiculous.

[MrsCat 6]

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."

How can this possibly be? It's the same as saying that the constitutional requirements for office simply do not matter.

Judge the merits of the case - if he is eligible, or not eligible, then fine - but to simply say that, in effect, the constitution doesn't matter is ridiculous.

That's not what the judge meant. IMO, the judge is 100% correct, Berg lacked standing to bring this kind of action.

Basically a preliminary matter to be determined in any civil case is whether the party has standing to bring an action. Normally that's pretty easy to make out. You show that you have a cause of action against someone for a harm (ie: you have suffered some type of harm/damages). In this case Berg wasn't able to make out the preliminary matter that he (1) actually suffered a concrete harm and in effect (2) a causal relationship between Obama's question of citizenship and an actual injury.

Makes sense to me.

[akdiver 3]

Any citizen should have the right to bring any case against anyone if it involves the violation of the U.S. Constitution (or potential such violation). Such violations are a crime against the entire citizenry, its fundamental basis for law and the nation as a whole. How anyone can claim that the harm against citizens is "too vauge" is beyond me. It seems fairly obvious. When certain provisions of the constitution can be violated with impunity, the government loses its legitimacy. If the harm in that is not obvious, well, not much more I can say I guess.

Power of government is supposed to derive from the willing consent of the people. If those people do not have "standing" to challenge that government on matters of the constitution, they are powerless against the tyranny of government.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think you misunderstand the use of the term 'standing' in this instance.

[Ling Ling 22]

Any citizen should have the right to bring any case against anyone if it involves the violation of the U.S. Constitution (or potential such violation). Such violations are a crime against the entire citizenry, its fundamental basis for law and the nation as a whole. How anyone can claim that the harm against citizens is "too vauge" is beyond me. It seems fairly obvious. When certain provisions of the constitution can be violated with impunity, the government loses its legitimacy. If the harm in that is not obvious, well, not much more I can say I guess.

Power of government is supposed to derive from the willing consent of the people. If those people do not have "standing" to challenge that government on matters of the constitution, they are powerless against the tyranny of government.

Ehhh, citizens don't have that right, at least not directly.

Essentially we have Criminal courts, and Civil courts.

Criminal courts are typically prosecuted by a local, state, or federal government on behalf of her citizens, for crimes against the citizenship.

Civil courts are typically prosecuted privately, for crimes against a person or business.

Therefore I believe the judge was saying that

1. It is not the proper venue for an alleged crime against the citizenship.

2. If it's a claim of personal harm, the plaintiff must be specific in how they were injured.

I'm just guessing on those two theories....see disclaimer below.

[MrsCat 6]

Any citizen should have the right to bring any case against anyone if it involves the violation of the U.S. Constitution (or potential such violation). Such violations are a crime against the entire citizenry, its fundamental basis for law and the nation as a whole.

If this is in fact Berg's argument, that is pretty nebulous and vague to me.

Harm in a civil case is measured by actual risk or very imminent harm to be done. It has to be specific and verifiable. This seems pretty hypothetical of what the personal risk and damages would be to Berg himself if Obama wins and he isn't eligible given his citizenship.

Additionally, now if Berg was representing 100,000 other people who believed Obama's citizenship as President was going to create an actual harm in their lives, then perhaps he would have been granted standing in court as a class action. One person taking one another's citizenship is exceptionally unlikely to ever gain standing because they are really unlikely to show any type of reason to bring this kind of action.

[akdiver 3]

Yeah - I guess the idea that we should obey the fundamental law of the land is pretty vague..esp. since the Bush administration.

[MrsCat 6]

Yeah - I guess the idea that we should obey the fundamental law of the land is pretty vague..esp. since the Bush administration.

well we do agree on something.