Thread: Eligiblilty question

I now this is not new news, but, if a US Senator has no standing to question BO eligibility, who does. We are told we have no standing. In an article on WND Sen Vitter says he has no standing so WHO has standing?

I believe "standing" went out the window with acountability and representing "We The People"

Well we can throw that "no standing" around quite a bit too. All these ignoramuses ( or is that ignoramii?) who have not personally had to pay a price of illegal immigration labeling and boycotting and hating have no standing and neither does the federal government. Anyone that can add 2 +2 and has been bit knows what the score is. I really fail to understand how so many people are falling for the propaganda. I had more faith in my fellow Americans - not any more.

STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

I think the "standing" dodge will work in the SB1070 suits.

If the Repubs take controll of the House there may not be any "standing" going on but there will be a whole bunch of investigative inquiries against the "Sitting" President. You can take that to the bank.

The Repubs are already discussing it.

Colorado Republican Buck attacks tea party’s ‘birthers’

U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck of Colorado has had another bumpy run through the news cycle, after a Democratic video tracker caught Buck lamenting the visibility of the "birther" contingent in the state tea party movement. Birthers — people who believe that President Obama has concealed evidence that he is not, in fact, a U.S. citizen — are indeed vocal tea party supporters in Colorado. The problem for Buck, however, is that they also form part of his own voter base.

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the tea party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" the Republican said at a campaign event in June. "God, what am I supposed to do?" The exchange was secretly taped, according to the Denver Post and local NBC affiliate 9NEWS.

Buck is already backtracking.

"The language is inappropriate," Buck told 9NEWS and the Post. "After 16 months on the campaign trail, I was tired and frustrated that I can't get that message through that we are going to go off a cliff if we don't start dealing with this debt."

Buck, a county district attorney, has received endorsements from several powerful elements within the tea party, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, FreedomWorks' PAC and various "9/12" groups — founded in honor of the Glenn Beck-sponsored 2009 protest in Washington.

In an interview with 9NEWS, Buck stressed his support for the tea party. "The tea party movement gets it. It's the Constitution, it's the debt, it's the other issues, but there are a couple people that are frankly frustrating for all candidates. I mean if you talked to other candidates and they're being honest with you, they'll say I know that. Now, they may not have used my choice words, but they have the same feelings."

This is the second "caught on camera" moment for Buck in recent weeks. Buck's suggestion that supporters should vote for him because he "doesn't wear high heels" handed his primary opponent, Jane Norton, a ready-made theme for negative campaigning last week. Buck said he was responding to Norton's attack on his manhood.

[Beyond P-O-T-A-T-O-E: Favorite political gaffes]

Norton, the state's former lieutenant governor, received an endorsement from Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer — among the more popular women leaders on the right today — in the wake of Buck's "heels" comment.

Norton and Buck will face off in the Aug. 10 GOP primary.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 ... -dumbasses

CNN had a blurb recently on the Birther movement. I don't have the specific link handy but it was sometime last week so it shouldn't be very hard to find the article. The article itself contained no real new info, but what was interesting was the 100 or so comments that people had posted in response to the article. About 98% of the comments were absolutely flaming the Birther movement, calling them idiots and so on.

One comment spoke of the investigative and vetting process that supposedly took place by the Senate, and the FBI and NSA... and the comment indicated that if there had been ANY problem with BHO's eligiblity, then THESE very powerful organizations would have certainly found it...

To which I say fine, those are in fact very powerful investigative outfits, for sure. But it should not fall upon me as an American voter, to have to trust these people in this way. That is, I shouldn't have to trust that they SAY his birth certificate exists, I just want to SEE it. Can't help but wonder why there's so much effort and money gone into HIDING something that should have no reason to be hidden. Where there's this much smoke, there's fire?

Originally Posted by JamesGarfield

CNN had a blurb recently on the Birther movement. I don't have the specific link handy but it was sometime last week so it shouldn't be very hard to find the article. The article itself contained no real new info, but what was interesting was the 100 or so comments that people had posted in response to the article. About 98% of the comments were absolutely flaming the Birther movement, calling them idiots and so on.

One comment spoke of the investigative and vetting process that supposedly took place by the Senate, and the FBI and NSA... and the comment indicated that if there had been ANY problem with BHO's eligiblity, then THESE very powerful organizations would have certainly found it...

To which I say fine, those are in fact very powerful investigative outfits, for sure. But it should not fall upon me as an American voter, to have to trust these people in this way. That is, I shouldn't have to trust that they SAY his birth certificate exists, I just want to SEE it. Can't help but wonder why there's so much effort and money gone into HIDING something that should have no reason to be hidden. Where there's this much smoke, there's fire?

The idiocy of this is that we are talking about records that are public domain and needed to prove eligibility. Yes...there is suppose to be an FBI process...but they will not share their information and in fact one man was killed attempting to get that information.

Congress and media should simply say that people have the right to question. All the anger and name calling is coming from the left. That's because they know they are wrong. Obama is not eligible. We will not pass eligibility requirements to run again.

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the tea party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" the Republican said at a campaign event in June. "God, what am I supposed to do?" The exchange was secretly taped, according to the Denver Post and local NBC affiliate 9NEWS.

Buck is already backtracking.

A preveiw of what you will get.