DB on this you are CORRECT.... WHY DIDN'T the SCOTUS SUMMARILY DISMISS this case?????I'd LOVE to hear their reason on THIS!!!!
On Nov 8, 10:44 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
