The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
From prominent writer and my friend Devvy Kidd and Harvard Scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, ESQ
Posted on | September 7, 2009 | 12 Comments
From:
To:
undisclosed-recipients
Now, that’s interesting.
Her case has a hearing tomorrow while Obama/Soetoro speaks to the kiddies.
Why did DOJ wait until the 11th hour this past Friday to file their motion when they have known about this hearing for some time? They file on Friday, today is a holiday and Orly’s hearing is tomorrow.
DOJ says that none of the plaintiffs who were candidates had any chance of winning the election anyway, so its okay to leave a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot and then in office. So what if Obama/Soetorowas born with dual citizenship and can never be eligible?
And, of course, on page 14 of the fed’s motion (link in the article) we go back to the issue of standing.
According to the courts so far, no one on this earth has standing when it comes to challenging the constitutional eligibility of The One, his holiness, Obama/Soetoro.
“The Justice Departmentis urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers’ attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama‘s Constitutional qualifications to be president.”
Rest at link
I go back to an Oct. 29, 2008 column Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote regarding standing. This is just an excerpt; read the rest at link
https://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First, the Constitutionmandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
Category: Events, Latest News, Legal Actions, Letters from Readers and Patriots, Letters/Feedback from Readers, LINKS, Supporting Documentation
Comments
12 Responses to “From prominent writer and my friend Devvy Kidd and Harvard Scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, ESQ”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 7th, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Dr. Orly,
They moves to dismiss https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-Obama-56-1.pdf.
Study the motion and work on response to defeat it.
God Bless You!
September 7th, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Guess I should have read this before posting my comment re the Politico article. This supports my comments, and I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Vieira.
If the courts and Congress refuse to give a fair hearing to the people’s grievances, the people have the right to reconstitute the government. The courts and Congress exist to serve us in accord with the Constitution. By failing to uphold the Constitution, they breach the contract between us and lose their right to govern. They are then no better than a common tyrant.
September 7th, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
At last someone gets to the root of citizens and the illegal invented term of “Standing”. Good work Dr. Vieira!
Now we will see how all this mess shakes out. We may have to remove by force the reckless judges of the Supreme Court for not doing their job. This has happened once before in the Supreme Court when the Republican majority of Congress threw out the duly elected represenatives from the former Confederate states following the civil war and proceeded to take the steps to have the military occupy the various states, illegally appointed new represenatives in order to get the fourteenth admendment passed.
The people are being subjected to all the criminal acts of a usurper and all of his supporters. This will indeed be a mess to clean up. Hopefully it can be done with little violence.
September 7th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
I thought the DOJ was told NOT to file a motion to dismiss or obstruct any hearing in the case. I realize that tomorrow’s hearing is an adjunct to the trial that has not been scheduled, but Judge Carter had stipulated that Obama’s side could not ask for a dismissal. Their 60 days is almost up anyway. Aren’t they prepared?
September 7th, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Orly. Surely under the Constitution everyone has standing in a Constitutional matter? The school busing racial case (Brown?) was a case in point.
September 7th, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Dr Taitz brings before this court a profound issue; whether Obama has any “standing” himself. She is arguing that he was ineligible to hold the office of president, and therefore, is ineligible to hide behind a “doctrine” not even mentioned in the constitution. In other words, failure to satisfy clear, concise constitutional requirements certainly disqualifies him to hide behind an artificial shield which might otherwise protect a person seated in office without eligibility issues. Since Obama is a person assuming the office without eligibility, he is indeed, at best, during this hearing, a de facto president. Mr Obama has not proved to any court that he is eligible to be president, and is therefore not president until he proves beyond all doubt that he meets all constitutional requirements.
September 7th, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Its amazing how the doj runs to the constitution for cover then hides from it when its not in their best interest
September 7th, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
In other words, while those in the military sacrifice their lives and their livelihoods in defense of the Constitution and our United States and that the office of the President of the United States is also the office of the Commander-in-Chief of the military, these four United States District attorneys cannot see how those in the military have any standing! Did they actually attend law school of any kind?
These four United States District attorneys are offensive to everyone who has ever served in the military and must necessarily believe both the military and the United States Consitution to be frivolous.
John G. Freeman
Veteran and Member
Commander-in-Chief’s Guard and Escort to the President
Washington, D. C.
1980 – 1983 | Carter and Reagan
September 8th, 2009 @ 4:17 am
…DOJ says that none of the plaintiffs who were candidates had any chance of winning the election anyway, so its okay to leave a constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot and then in office. So what if Obama/Soetorowas born with dual citizenship and can never be eligible?…”————That’s a totally ridiculous argument! If the Kenyan’s name was not on the ballot to begin with, one of those other candidates on the ballot would have won! Perhaps it would have been Keyes!! One thing we know for sure: if the Kenyan’s name was off the ballot and therefore not one of the choices, another person – not the Kenyan – would have won!! So, that person who would have won who was not the Kenyan had an EXCELLENT chance of winning!!!!!!!!!!
September 8th, 2009 @ 11:18 am
God Bless YOU! 🙂 Dr. Orly! 🙂 YOU are a wonderful Patriot! 🙂 Prayers for strength for YOU! 🙂
September 8th, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Re: Is this why nobody has standing?
There are TWO United States: the continental United States, the sovereign 50 states (Constitutional Republic – 3 branches), and the federal United States, a Legislative Democracy consisting of only one branch – Congress – operating out of the District of Columbia and ruling over Federal Regions, without checks and balances, outside the purview of the Constitution.
Hard to believe? Here’s the full story:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/9143530/The-Uniform-Commercial-Code-Connection
Somebody, please tell me if this information is accurate.
September 11th, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
I have maintained for a long time that there needs to be a specific federal statute that imposes felony criminal sanctions upon anyone who takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and then subsequently violates the constitution/oath. In other words, make it a felony for any public official to violate the US Constitution, regardless of whether that public official is a police officer, a congressman, or the POTUS. If such a law were in place, and strictly enforced, that would effectively put an end to virtually all the political shenanigans overnight. As it is now, if someone violates an indiviuals constitutional rights, the only recourse is civil.
And, yes, the current doctrine of “standing” is unconstitutional in ALL cases in which a constitutional claim is brought forth. With respect to Obama’s eligibility, by denying anyone on earth standing, the courts have effectively rendered an entire section of constitution nugatory. If there is no enforcement mechanism for Article II of the constitution, then it effectively doesn’t exist.
GO ORLY!!!