On Nov 8, 11:38 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to hear the reasoning on why an American Citizen wouldn't > "have standing"... The issue of "standing" in this case has to do with a gap in the law, that is, there is no specific mechanism to apply the constitutional requirement regarding a president's presence or lack of citizenship - as pointed out by the District Court in Pennsylvania. In effect, the court said "Take it up with the legislature." SCOTUS previously refused Ohio on essentially the same grounds. Why SCOTUS didn't similarly and summarily dismiss Berg's appeal is a mystery. Frankly, I suspect they're humoring him (and us), since the issue of standing (applicable law) has yet to be met. Unless SCOTUS intends to reverse itself after-the-fact regarding Ohio. In McCain, the issue centered around his birth on a US military base in Panama (both parents were American citizens), and the question of eligibility was pursed by his own campaign - specifically the exact meaning of "natural born." With one exception, McCain's eligibility was without precedent since all previous US presidents were born in the US. The exception would have been Barry Goldwater, who, although born in Arizona (territory), was born (1909) before Arizona became a state. Regarding Obama, he may well have a valid birth certificate, but he may still be disqualified (which seems likely) because of his subsequent citizenship in Indonesia - which upon his return to the US, required an oath to reestablish [US] citizenship. Without proof of such an oath, he's finished. The only way for him to avoid this outcome is not to provide his birth certificate, which would open the door to all the items listed in Berg's suit - such as his Indonesian citizenship. Meanwhile, the nebulous doctrine of "greater good" - which postulates infinite wisdom and supremacy over the electorate - is likely to kick in. Meaning that the matter will be settled in a back room, either in form and production of "valid" documentation, or via a massive volume of arcane constitutional interpretation. The greater-good option would be employed to avoid a constitutional crisis, possible civil unrest, riots, and/or all out civil war. At least that would be the rationalization agreed to in the back room. Followed by a twelve-year-old cognac and a rousing round of back slapping. Carried in another direction, assume the court disqualifies Obama. Then what, Joe Biden? Maybe next year, but not in or around the inauguration - particularly since Biden was soundly defeated when he ran on his own. So, it's either McCain, or another election. In any case, there's no precedent for these scenarios, other than the will of the people ostensibly carried out by the Electoral College. Therefore, my guess is "greater good." Particularly since Obama won the popular vote by a decisive margin - citizen or not. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
