[Q] - Philip Berg's lawsuit 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. - http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html
"Standing" not established. At the moment no one shall have standing in the eyes of the court: Judge Surrick: "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." In addition, Surrick wasn't too crazy about the nature of the evidence presented by Berg. Surrick's decision wasn't unexpected. Berg says he will appeal. It's an uphill fight, especially given the Supreme Court's recent ruling not to confer "standing" in the case against the Ohio Sec. of State. Therefore, certain mandates of the Constitution are more conceptual than enforceable. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
