A blog about Politics.
Gender: male Date of Birth: October 31, 1953 Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: November 24, 2009 Profile Views: 3315 Blog Views: 63399 First Lady Michelle Obama Hates Oprah Winfrey. So Much For That Sense Of Entitlement MICHELLE OBAMA HATES OPRAH White House: Obama Afghan decision 'within days' New Map Bolsters Case for Ancient Ocean on Mars Obama could lock in Afghanistan decision Monday Will Minorities Get Enough Out of the Economic Stimulus? Michelle Stabs Oprah In The Back ! Palin limits crowd interaction at NC's Fort Bragg Palin's Book Tour to Include Stop at Fort Hood Kangaroo tries to drown dog, attacks owner March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility case finds 'standing'? Posted: December 30, 2008 By Drew Zahn
A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing." In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury. In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing. "These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22. "Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office." Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution. "He doesn't think he does; we think he does. That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said. (Story continues below) 5 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
Ppopgun
on Jan 2, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Cast your vote on the issue of Barry Soetoro's ... uh, Barack Obama's eligibility in an unscientific AOL poll at: http://news.aol.com/politic... So much for all the smack about this mattering for just a few sore losers. posted by
dirtyshirt
on Jan 3, 2009 at 08:29 AM
In a country of millions, a few is a large number; I'll grant you that. But how do you think the Supreme Court will invalidate the votes of more people for one man than has occurred in our history? More importantly, however, (I suppose all those 60+million could be wrong after all) why does the Obama Birth Certificate Obsessionists think the State of Hawaii's validation of his birth certificate isn't sufficient? Here's the outcome of this case should it come to court: Defendant: We call the Secretary of State of Hawaii to the stand. (He's given the oath). Defendant: Sir, can you validate that this is a copy of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate? The same Birth Certificate that was produced two months ago? SoS: Yes. Defendant: In your state, is this proof of live birth in your state? SoS: Yes. Defendant: Your honor, we move that this case be thrown out on grounds. Judge: So ordered. This case is dismissed.
How come the obsessionists don't see this? Even if the whole machinery of Hawaii is lying for the man, they can and will get away with it, because it is their documents that are called into question. If they say the docs are in order, then no one else has anything to say on the subject. Not any forensic expert that declares it a forgery, not a private detective who traces Obama's school records, not a blogger who enjoys his fantasies of knocking down a duly elected president. It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Jan 3, 2009 at 08:41 AM
"How come the obsessionists don't see this..."
Short term memory loss. --virigl posted by
siouxcityranch
on Jan 3, 2009 at 08:47 AM
DS not a blogger who enjoys his fantasies of knocking down a duly elected president. LOOK DS....some times even though it may seem silly to you.... people like to keep abreast of whats going on with his BC...If it offends you to read it please don't stress yourself..kick 'ol Trigger' in the ribs and move on down the road.. Right or wrong its in the news..and until it just drys up and blows away??? if I get something where its being pursued by another source I will post it.. That's my RIGHT.. You just blew yourI'm such a nice guy blog from yesterday out of the water didn't cha..is arrogant spelt with one R or two?? I would further appreciate it if you would stick to discussing the article and refrain from attacking the poster. posted by
jfrancais
on Jan 3, 2009 at 08:52 AM
Trying to pull the "okie doke", eh? The article says that the voter has to prove that he's ineligible now you want him to prove that he's eligible. Don't you see the flaw in that? Bring some substantial evidence (foreign birth certificate/passport/invalid American documents/etc.) before the court that would prompt him to avail himself to the court to address it. Until then this hoopla will only continue to circulate (in a circular fashion, I might add) on the net.
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
