On Oct 26, 1:12 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As they say from outer space; "Mission control, we have a problem." > > I don't see how Berg can prevail in light of the following: > > 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." > > SCOTUS essentially said the same thing in the recent Ohio case; no > "standing." Beyond an act of congress, there is no mechanism currently > available which allows citizens/voters to legally challenge a > presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility. > > Berg's challenge is completely unprecedented; there's no "law" to rule > upon.
False. Jones v. Bush, Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen are all cases on point. > Should Obama win (which appears increasingly doubtful despite the MSM/ > Marxist frenzy), the best approach may be to petition the Electoral > College not to certify the election until the constitutional > eligibility mandates are met. Which can be done on in Congress on 1/9/2009 via 3 U.S.C. section 15. > If nothing else, the stink will invade Main Street until the voters > are up in arms. That could make an interesting 2010 mid-term election. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
