Black3 posted about the finding in the Florida eligibility case where a judge decided that Obama does not have to follow the Constitutional eligibility clause, this goes back to a case decided prior to the election in 2008 called Berg v. Obama et al.”
Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.
The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren’t properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.
If not the people – who governs the governors – who watches the watchmen?
Can we truly have a system that is based on the consent of the governed if the governed do not have “standing” when it comes to something as critical as the eligibility of a candidate for the highest office in the land?
I completely disagree with the reasoning in this case (that sets court-created doctrine as opposed to the Constitution) that:
“…a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters…”
The founders specifically put this eligibility clause in the Constitution to prevent anyone, not just an agent of a foreign government, but anyone who doesn’t share an allegiance to America, so we all have a dog in this hunt, we are all injured if any candidate is allowed to prosecute an illegitimate campaign.
The extension of this is the equivalent to the Scottish nobles asking King Charles I of England to help them pick their next king after the death of King Alexander III in 1286.
Just so you know, that didn’t work out so well for the Scots.
I happen to believe that that any voter has standing under the 10th Amendment as it states that all powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.
I appreciate that the jurists are also likely thinking that they wanted to avoid a future of 300 million individual lawsuits – but in absence of an official certification law and process, they have no business deciding a matter of constitutionality based on court created precedent. It is a matter for the people.