Berg's Suit Against Obama is Dismissed

According to the website America's Right, the lawsuit filed in Philadelphia by Attorney Philip Berg challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

It appears that the judge was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations:

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama's childhood form the basis of Plaintiff's allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff's opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama's cover-up.

The judge compared Berg's action with those of Fred Hollander, who sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen and held that Berg's stake:

"is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters." The harm cited by Berg, Judge Surrick wrote, "is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

"regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election."

So now the question is folks " Who does have legal standing to challenge Obama ?"

Well according to the judge anyway, Congress does:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

Berg is understandably disappointed but vows to appeal this decision to to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg said. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States, the most powerful man in the entire world, is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"

Attorney Philip J. Berg


Ted said...

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!!!

J.R. said...

I agree with you Ted, this could backfire on Obama, the american people are going to get pretty ugly if they thin their constitutional rights are being denied.

I hope it does, or that Obama anwers the questions raised in the suit and is able to pout an end to the debacle one way or the other.

The american people have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to know and challange his eligibilty.

Thanks for visiting Talk Show America

smrstrauss said...

Let us suppose you were right and that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

He WAS born in Hawaii. I’ve seen pictures of his birth certificate (or maybe certificate of live birth, I forget which), and there is a confirming notice in the Hawaii Advertiser. But suppose on a wild chance that this was wrong.

Suppose that this fact were to be proven before the election. Would this help make McCain elected president? No. It would merely make Joe Biden the presidential candidate of the Democratic party.

Would Biden win just like Obama would? Sure.

Would he win even BIGGER than Obama would? Maybe. You can’t call him inexperienced or a terrorist or a friend of Ayers, nor would people who vote against Obama because of his race or alleged Arab ties or alleged Moslem religion vote against Biden.

Biden would get all the votes of Obama and maybe a few more.

Suppose it was proven after the election. Would that make McCain the president? No. If the Congress really bought the fact that Obama was not born in the USA, and that therefore Obama was not eligible to be president (which is a stretch because it is controlled by Democrats), then Biden would be president.

So, what is the point?

The Captain said...

A Democratic Controlled Congress isn't going to do anything about this other than drag their feet and somehow sweep all of this under the rug, IF it's true. As it stands right now, the Hawaiian birth of Barack Obama is the only 'legal' acceptance, Might this change if 'conclusive' proof can be brought forward? Maybe, maybe not! We'll just have to see. In the meantime, how about bringing back the real Conservative Party? There's enough time to get things going for a 2012 run and taking our Country back from the whiners who have forgotten what it is like to be an American. Just my humble opinion...'The Captain'

Post a Comment