The Glade 4.0

You know what I mean. You *can* sue, but your suit will be dismissed by the courts. You *can* make a charge, but without evidence it won't go anywhere.

Look, Robert Gibbs outlined what these people are asking the courts to believe before their asinine suits can go forward -

"A pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child — who there’s not a passport for — so is in cahoots with someone…to smuggle that child, that previously doesn’t exist on a government roll somewhere back into the country and has the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later"

You guys are acting like Orly Taitz is in front of the court trying to argue about precedents related to questioning the eligibility of presidents under the constitution. That *is not* what is being argued here. Roe V Wade would not have happened had there not been a case. Brown V Board required a real case before the question could be asked and answered.

There is no case here. The plaintiffs have neither standing to sue nor evidence to show. You have to have both, or you got nothing. This is not dangerous, new, or unprecedented. It's just the way the law works.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

That isn't true. A case that is not in a court's jurisdiction cannot be heard regardless of merit.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Did you read the decision? It goes into the details there.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

When you're talking about the law, you must be specific. You were passing off falsehoods as true, regardless of what you meant to say.

Say what you mean instead of stating things that are false.



False. You still get to present your items before the judge, who may then throw them out. Failing to have evidence, failing to have standing, and failing to file in the appropriate jurisdiction does not prevent you from going before the judge.

If the judge throws it out because he/she believes you don't have any or all of the three above, you may then appeal. Repeat until you've reached the USSC, or re-file in the appropriate jurisdiction.



However, let's grant you that these particular individuals do not have standing. Who does?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's for the courts to decide. First, you need to show that you have been directly harmed by the person or organization you are suing, under the law. Orly Taitz and those she has represented have failed to do so. They have, in fact, been laughed out of court.

You have to read their arguments and the decisions to understand why the courts came to their conclusions. They have denied the claims for many reasons, but standing is almost always one of them. Evidence, and incomprehensible arguments made by the plaintiffs are also a part of it.

In other words, the suits are just insane, on their face, and those bringing them before the courts have no standing to do so under the law.

Look, you can't just sue anyone for anything you want. You know that, and I know that. You can't ask a constitutional question because you wanna. There has to be a case that asks the question. If you want to investigate the law or change it, that's what the legislature is for. Call your congressman. Legal questions arise from legal cases. No one is entitled to have their lunatic conspiracy theories run through the courts simply because they really, really believe their theory. The courts have real issues to deal with, and should not be bogged down with the crazy.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes, and that's the basic principle of jurisdiction. Merit, standing, etc. don't matter if a court lacks jurisdiction. You can have the best case in the world for murder in Ohio, but if you try to bring a case in an Alabama court you're **** out of luck.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Right, however, this decision was a case of constitutional law, which according to the cited precedents, could *only* be dismissed on those grounds if the suit was *also* frivolous and without merit. That was clear in the decision I posted.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Which speaks only to the incompetance and silliness of their complaint and the fact that a member of the military on active duty automatically lacks standing regardless of whether a regular civilian would.



Which in no way limits the other court that the OP refers to if they DO believe someone has standing. In any case you cannot generalize from Orly's case to any other unless that plantiff is also filing based on an action taken that affects them as a member of the military.



Which in no way can be generalized to anyone else's case since other courts DO think people have standing. Sorry, but the only thing you can establish with Orly's case is that her client has no case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it wasn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And no other plaintiff has had a case. They are continually dismissed, laughed out of court, and overturned on appeal.

What makes anyone believe this one will be different? In the end, this person *still* has to prove the conspiracy theory that Barak Obama was not born in this country. The Supreme Court has repeatedly sent these idiotic claims back without even commenting on them.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Please go back and re read it, so I don't have to post it. Seriously, I don't think you really read what the judge said in their decision. This is about subject matter jurisdiction, and not geography. The relevant bits are on page 4 and 5. Essentially, the court properly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds *not* because it was in the wrong place, but because a constitutional issue was raised based on an entirely asinine argument. In fact, that's the only time the court must dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction, from what I can tell.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I did read it, and I don't think you undertand jurisdiction. Geography determines venue, not jurisdiction. While the two can be related, courts geenrally lack jurisdiction outside their venue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are ignoring page 4 and 5. It's a PDF, so I can't cut and paste. This was dismissed based on subject matter jurisdiction, which can only be done if the case is frivolous.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

False.



False.




Effectively false.




Again, who has standing?

See, because it isn't for the courts to decide. The statute, regulations, or Constitution indicates standing. The courts simply apply statute, regulation, or Constitution to create a ruling as to standing, but they don't get to decide the law.

Therefore, somebody has standing. I'm asking you to state who would have the standing under statute, regulation, or Constitution. Who?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

False.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The courts decide who has standing via precedent, DFK. You may not like it, but that's how our system works. That is due process. The Constitution, the law, and the *precedence of law* determines this, not just your subjective opinion on what that should look like.

I don't know who might have standing here. You have to have been harmed by a citizen of the US of a proper age being duely elected as president.

You see, the harm cannot even be considered unless the plaintiff can prove that the president is not a citizen. Without that proof, what harm has been done?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

False.

The courts do not decide who has standing, the statute, regulation, and the Constitution decides it. The courts merely determine based upon that.



Fair enough.

Now:
How would a person prove that harm occurred without standing?



So I can't demonstrate that I have standing unless I have previously had a case decided that indicates I have standing? That is your effective argument?

Circular logic.




I steal money from a grocer. Can the grocer sue me?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's not as circular as you want to portray. In the process of determining if a person has standing, you determine via evidence if harm has been done.

it goes like this -

You bring a suit over hot coffee spilled on you by McDonalds.

McDonalds says you have no standing to sue. The court agrees and dismisses. You appeal.

You present evidence showing harm.

Your appeal succeeds, the lower court's ruling is overturned.

Or,

You bring a suit over hot coffee spilled on you by McDonalds.

You present your evidence.

McDonalds attempts to have the case dismissed. They fail, because you have evidence that supports your case.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The question is, who would have standing to challenge him/her if a rabidly conservative became president and there were those who claimed he/she were not Constitutionally eligible to be president?

Someone who could show that they had cause to sue. For example, if that person had credible evidence that the President was not eligible. Standing is not determined before any evidence is presented. It is, however, the first thing a lawyer is going to move to dismiss on. No standing, no case.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

False. New evidence is not presented at appeal. That isn't how the court system works.



Correct.

However, the evidence must still be considered by the court and determined to be true or not, which may then be appealed by either side. The determination of harm only occurs during the course of the trial, not before it.



Therefore, I may present a claim of, say, fraud against a person I believe is ineligible to be president of, say, my local bank and say that they have misrepresented their eligibility. I don't have to enter into the case having been harmed and holding proof of it, the case itself determines the facts of harm.

That's what is, in theory, occurring with these cases against Obama. If he's found eligible, then 'harm' hasn't occurred. If he's found ineligible (and I don't believe he would be, as a side note) then 'harm' has occurred to every single American citizen.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So you'd be ok with a conservative in the White House even if there were questions concerning his eligibility?

Personally speaking, I want to know that those elected are legally eligible to be elected, whatever their political leanings are.

No, it isn't. Subject matter and frivoloity are unrelated. A probate court can easily dismiss a case of robbery based on subject matter without it being the least bit frivolous.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... waii_N.htm

Someone's feeding you bad information, Montegue ...
They didn't destroy their paper documents; hence, people still being able to request long-form certificates for college entry and military enlistment.

_________________

I...he...what...but...

/sigh