Will Supreme Court take case on Obama's citizenship?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What, you weren't interested in the fact that a US Senator was watching his smoking-hot actress wife **** other men on stage?

Ryan was only a candidate, never an actual Senator.

[KrazyHorse]

Oops. Thought he was a 1 term incumbent.

[Boris Godunov]

You're not far off, the incumbent Peter Fitzgerald was a one-term Republican who opted not to run again.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh well. Still not bad for a Canadian.

[TCO]

Like smart for a Marine.

[Boris Godunov]

Hmm, and Fitzgerald had beat Mosely-Braun, who was a one-term Senator as well. Looks like that seat is starting to be as bad as the NC seat that flips every election.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
Like smart for a Marine.

Marines are pussies.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Anyone can file a lawsuit, and they can also appeal ad nauseum if their suit is dimissed, no matter how frivolous it is. Obama, the DNC, the state SOSes, or whoever is being sued is going to be forced to spend money on his legal responses regardless. Do you honestly think his producing the orginal birth certificate would stop that? His producing a certified copy hasn't, after all. Would it make any real change to the cost to the nation of these suits?

You're right that any schmuck can file a lawsuit, but that's precisely my point: when they're inevitable, then you can only choose the most cost-effective way to deal with them. You have two options:

1) Hire some high-end firms to have team of associates redundantly pore over precedents on standing to draft extensive motions to dismiss over dozens or hundreds of billable hours, with the additional expense of tailoring each motion to the peculiarities of each individual complaint. Repeat ad nauseam for every single suit.

OR

2) File a simple two-page answer saying "DENIED" under each factual allegations, and attach as evidentiary exhibits a certified copy of the original long-form certificate, the certificate of live birth, and sworn affidavits from a few Hawaii DoH officials. Since the plaintiff has no substantial evidence whatsoever, you could then file a straightforward two-page motion for summary judgment to have the case promptly dismissed because no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff with the evidence stated. Hell, even you or I could wrap up this entire defense strategy with 8 hours and a laptop. Then, when somebody refiles in the future, or even in still-pending cases, you could probably have it dismissed for res judicata since it had already been litigated on the merits. Bada bing bada boom. Done.

Lo and behold, the DNC chose #1 anyway. Glad I don't have enough money to donate to them.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Since you know full well how frivolous these suits are, the only people you should be angry at are the *******s filing them, not Obama, not the DNC, not the states. That'd you'd blame the victims for this is simply unreasonable.

By allowing even a shadow of doubt when they could easily offer ironclad proof with nothing but a phone call and fax, they're doing more than wasting money on lawyers. By curiously refusing to do so they're giving loonies a glimmer of hope and inviting the question unnecessarily, for what? To protect "confidential" documents? What on them could possibly be embarrasing? I just don't get it. You could settle this inside 24 hours but nooo, let's give it 24 weeks instead.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Then your bringing it up missed the point. This is why you need to read and take time to understand the arguments going on instead of flinging yourself stupidly into the middle of them.

Synopsis:

BK: Since I have to produce a Birth Certificate at the DMV (note the stupidity, since he doesn't have to present an original, a certfied copy will do), Obama should have to produce his to be president.
Me: When has a President ever been required to produce a birth certificate?
BK: McCain (who interestingly enough isn't President...)
Me: No, McCain was never required to produce a birth certificate (and as you stated, he wasn't).

What's to argue with that sequence? Why are you even getting involved, since you didn't bother to understand what was going on?

Why should you assume I was defending BK in any way, shape, or form? Regardless of whatever nonsense he was pulling out of his ass, an underlying theme of the discussion at least was whether McCain was expected by many to present proof positive of his eligibility. Forced by a court with the threat of contempt charges? No. Expected, and pressured? Yes. Expected and pressured to the point of being involuntarily dragged into court over the issue? Yes.

I should also note that BK never said or suggested that McCain was forced by a court to turn anything over; that was your question to his arguments limited to expectation and pressure, the same expectation and pressure that some here think shouldn't have been applied to Obama, suit or no suit. It seems you didn't bother to understand his point any more than I bothered to understand yours, which may have been a bit of a straw man to begin with. But I won't be caught dead defending BK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Darius871
A) His primary theory was not merely violation of the Constitution in itself, but rather that his party's candidate being (allegedly) ineligible would effectively deprive him of the franchise, which would certainly an individualized harm. Or do you think African-Americans challenging poll taxes or grandfather clauses dealt with excessively "generalized grievances"? Sure it's different in that they had no vote as opposed to at least having a choice between an opponent and a nullity, but at the very least the franchise would be infringed if not negated in practice.

B) As mentioned on this thread, his "backup" theory was one of promissory estoppel, alleging in short that open representations by Obama and the DNC that the Presidential candidate was eligible, and Berg's reasonable reliance on those representations, induced his tangible donation of both cash and billable hours to DNC efforts.

C) Theoretically the same facts in B could even raise a fraud cause of action, though Berg chose not to do so AFAICS. Obviously it would be almost impossible to prove the intent element of fraud, but you should know that factual merits are not a factor in standing analysis.

D) This isn't relevant to Berg's case given that he (stupidly) didn't include any State officials as defendants, but 42 USC S.1983 explicitly grants standing and jurisdiction to sue any State official for violation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, which would obviously include the franchise. Of course it would be difficult to prove any State official's complicity, but again factual merits are not a factor in standing analysis, and in any case it could be fairly alleged that their placing X on the ballot should require a process to directly confirm X's eligibility.

Happy now?

^^

What he said.

If you deny voters to be able to have the standing to sue when they may be ineligible for office that would be a baaaad thing. You then leave it to his opponents, who may have been bought off with some promises.

Basically this is saying that if the Democrats and Republicans agree, the Republicans can nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for President and no citizen can challenge it.

[KrazyHorse]

Stop trying to change the subject from Jeri Ryan having sex with strangers in sex clubs.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Basically this is saying that if the Democrats and Republicans agree, the Republicans can nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for President and no citizen can challenge it.

Damn, why didn't I think of that analogy

Of course, then there's the argument that picturing such nefarious collusion between parties is every bit as paranoid as thinking Obama's a half-Arab Muslim born in Kenya with Osama as the midwife. Unless you're of the opinion that the parties are nearly indistinguishable when compared to the rest of the world, or two sides of the same capitalist coin, or whathaveyou. IMO, even the possibility of such a loophole, no matter how remote, is always reason enough to close it when you're dealing with the Constitution and the even pre-constitutional franchise.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


A) His primary theory was not merely violation of the Constitution in itself, but rather that his party's candidate being (allegedly) ineligible would effectively deprive him of the franchise, which would certainly an individualized harm. Or do you think African-Americans challenging poll taxes or grandfather clauses dealt with excessively "generalized grievances"? Sure it's different in that they had no vote as opposed to at least having a choice between an opponent and a nullity, but at the very least the franchise would be infringed if not negated in practice.

There is no continuum between having no choice and having choices. That is an either/or situation. The comparison is spacious.

If Mr. Berg believes that one candidate is not qualified to be president because he does not meet the requirements, then his remedy is to vote for any of the SEVERAL candidates that did meet the qualifications.

B) As mentioned on this thread, his "backup" theory was one of promissory estoppel, alleging in short that open representations by Obama and the DNC that the Presidential candidate was eligible, and Berg's reasonable reliance on those representations, induced his tangible donation of both cash and billable hours to DNC efforts.

How could he show that the money and time he donated to the DNC went to the Obama campaign, and not, say, any one of MANY campaigns the Democratic Party was involved in? He couldn't. The issue then is the same as with spending tax dollars.

D) This isn't relevant to Berg's case given that he (stupidly) didn't include any State officials as defendants, but 42 USC S.1983 explicitly grants standing and jurisdiction to sue any State official for violation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, which would obviously include the franchise. Of course it would be difficult to prove any State official's complicity, but again factual merits are not a factor in standing analysis, and in any case it could be fairly alleged that their placing X on the ballot should require a process to directly confirm X's eligibility.

Happy now?

So this is irrelevant to the discussion of Berg's case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you deny voters to be able to have the standing to sue when they may be ineligible for office that would be a baaaad thing. You then leave it to his opponents, who may have been bought off with some promises.

Basically this is saying that if the Democrats and Republicans agree, the Republicans can nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for President and no citizen can challenge it.

This theoretical is pretty stupid. Beyond the high improbability of it (why would hundreds of qualified Republican candidates just lay down and let him pass them on, and why on earth would the opposing party care?), the free press would allow the average citizen to see the fix, and then their simple solution is to take individual political action, in the form of protests, or supporting a thidr party candidate of their choosing.

The fact is that when you go vote for President, there are usually more than two choices, and you are able to use that choice. And again, what is the harm if the "non-qualified" gets elected?

[Deity Dude]

Here's my general take on the case.

Let me preface this by saying I voted for Obama.

Even if the Supreme Court hears the case the most they will do is decide the "standing issue" If they find the plaintiff had standing the will probably send the case back to the lower court to be tried. They will not try the facts of the case themselves.

As far as standing goes, it seems to me self evident that every citizen of voting age in the United States has standing as to whether or not those seeking office meet the Constitutional requirements of the office they seek. At a minimum anyone running for the office (Whether a minor Candidate or not) would certainly have standing because they could make the claim that they personally were injured. If that is the case, I am sure you could find someone who received at least one vote for president to file the case.

As far as the facts of the case. It is like so many of these types of things. Lot's of unanswered questions leads to lots of speculation. One thing is certain. Obama refuses to release any information that could very easily put this to rest. Whether or not it is his legal right to withhold this information will be decided shortly.

One thing we have to remember though is the standard for a president (not the legal standard) should be higher than whatever procedural issues he can use. The president, as leader, is supposed to set an example, exude leadership and confidence, not hide behind procedural issues. This leads me to believe there is something to hide. It might be tangential to the issue and embarrassing but my gut feeling is there is something to hide.

Anyways the debate will go on until he or the courts clear it up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what is the harm if the "non-qualified" gets elected

There isn't a harm if you voted for a person who ended up being disqualified or not eligible for the job?