Obama birth lawsuit dismissed

I started following this a few days ago and found it fascinating from a legal standpoint:

Judge Dismisses Obama Birth Certificate Lawsuit (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79086)

Essentially it was determined that the attorney had no standing to file the suit. Interestingly enough, the same situation took place with McCain, with the lawsuit being dismissed and with the plaintiff being deemed to have no cause for the suit.

It's amazing that there are actually disputes about the eligibility of both candidates with respect to their birthplace. Seems like a pretty important issue to get to the bottom of, regardless of your political leaning.

Could someone with far better legal training than I weigh in on this? If an "average citizen" can't file a lawsuit for this, then who theoretically could? Or is there essentially no way to challenge this? If the constitution states that a presidential candidate must be a "natural born citizen" and there is some dispute about it, who DOES raise the issue? It seems like if a requirement is stated and someone might not meet that requirement (in this case, McCain AND Obama), there's got to be some legal recourse to determine the truth.

So no one else is even remotely curious about any of this?

Incessant posts of YouTube videos with verbal gaffes get hundreds of responses, a question about the legitimacy of both candidates even running for president doesn't generate a single response?

Shhhhh. Look I'll tell you how American Politics work.

The Patriots (愛国者達, Aikokusha-tachi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)), also known as the La-li-lu-lei-lo (らりるれろ, La-li-lu-lei-lo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)) are a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society) cabal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal), revealed in Metal Gear Solid 2, that control the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government#Fiction) United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots_(Metal_Gear)#cite_note-40) The group is initially revealed as an inner circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_circle) consisting of twelve people known as the The Wisemen's Committee (賢人会議, Kenjin Kaigi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)).

The group is responsible for picking the canidates in elections as well as putting on a public display that makes the people think they've elected said canidate. So with that said no one will be able to file this suit so long as the Patriots run thing.

Shhhhh. Look I'll tell you how American Politics work.

The Patriots (愛国者達, Aikokusha-tachi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)), also known as the La-li-lu-lei-lo (らりるれろ, La-li-lu-lei-lo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)) are a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society) cabal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal), revealed in Metal Gear Solid 2, that control the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government#Fiction) United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots_(Metal_Gear)#cite_note-40) The group is initially revealed as an inner circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_circle) consisting of twelve people known as the The Wisemen's Committee (賢人会議, Kenjin Kaigi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese)).

The group is responsible for picking the canidates in elections as well as putting on a public display that makes the people think they've elected said canidate. So with that said no one will be able to file this suit so long as the Patriots run thing.

Thanks, that was very thought provoking ;)

Maybe it designed that way to keep Dems and Reps from just filing one lawsuit after another. Kind of saving themself from themself.

So no one else is even remotely curious about any of this?

Incessant posts of YouTube videos with verbal gaffes get hundreds of responses, a question about the legitimacy of both candidates even running for president doesn't generate a single response?

You expected better? Your standards are too high

The concept of "standing" is one of the most fundamental principles of the U.S. justice system. Basically, courts will dismiss a claim unless there is a real dispute between aggrieved parties. Courts do not allow bystanders to waste the court's time or the taxpayers' dollars to resolve a dispute that is so insignificant that the injured party hasn't bothered to file a complaint.

For example, suppose you borrow your brother's car. You drive the car to run errands, but forget to lock the doors. The car gets stolen and is never returned, your brother gets pissed, and ends up paying a $500 insurance deductible, but that's about it. Your brother doesn't sue you for negligence in small claims court. Your brother's friend hears about the episode and gets pissed that you didn't pay the deductible. Should your brother's friend be allowed to sue you to recover the $500 deductible? Obviously not. If your brother isn't bothered enough to file suit, your brother's friend should get to use the court system to stick his nose into someone else's business.

The reason why your status as a taxpayer, voter, etc. does not afford you the right to bring suit against the FEC, the DoD, the President, etc. for anything political, is because the link between your obligation to pay taxes and, say, Obama's right to run for President is far too weak. The Federal Elections Commission, McCain, and others can chime in if there is a serious issue. Similarly, no court is going to take you seriously if you seek an injunction to stop the war in Iraq on the theory that it is being illegally prosecuted and you have standing because your tax dollars are, at least according to the anti-war crowd, being wasted.

In addition to keeping the court system from unnecessarily wasting tax dollars, the standing doctrine (as well as other related doctrines) prevents the courts from being hijacked by nuts who look to the courts to express their political views because they don't think they will like how the conventional political process (e.g., elections) will work itself out. Without the standing doctrine (and other related doctrines), the courts would likely be flooded with BS litigation designed to make an end-run around the conventional political system.

To be a bit more serious regarding this, I would think that when filing your papers for the candidacy of POTUS that one of the required forms should be the full birth certificate documentation. Clearly it's not but if his legitimacy was in question he would have spent as much money as possible to "correct" it. Either way, if it were a story then some rich GOP supporter would have made darn sure of his birthright.

The concept of "standing" is one of the most fundamental principles of the U.S. justice system. Basically, courts will dismiss a claim unless there is a real dispute between aggrieved parties. Courts do not allow bystanders to waste the court's time or the taxpayers' dollars to resolve a dispute that is so insignificant that the injured party hasn't bothered to file a complaint.

For example, suppose you borrow your brother's car. You drive the car to run errands, but forget to lock the doors. The car gets stolen and is never returned, your brother gets pissed, and ends up paying a $500 insurance deductible, but that's about it. Your brother doesn't sue you for negligence in small claims court. Your brother's friend hears about the episode and gets pissed that you didn't pay the deductible. Should your brother's friend be allowed to sue you to recover the $500 deductible? Obviously not. If your brother isn't bothered enough to file suit, your brother's friend should get to use the court system to stick his nose into someone else's business.

The reason why your status as a taxpayer, voter, etc. does not afford you the right to bring suit against the FEC, the DoD, the President, etc. for anything political, is because the link between your obligation to pay taxes and, say, Obama's right to run for President is far too weak. The Federal Elections Commission, McCain, and others can chime in if there is a serious issue. Similarly, no court is going to take you seriously if you seek an injunction to stop the war in Iraq on the theory that it is being illegally prosecuted and you have standing because your tax dollars are, at least according to the anti-war crowd, being wasted.

In addition to keeping the court system from unnecessarily wasting tax dollars, the standing doctrine (as well as other related doctrines) prevents the courts from being hijacked by nuts who look to the courts to express their political views because they don't think they will like how the conventional political process (e.g., elections) will work itself out. Without the standing doctrine (and other related doctrines), the courts would likely be flooded with BS litigation designed to make an end-run around the conventional political system.

Excellent! Exactly the kind of response I was seeking.

I guess this would explain why in 2000 the lawsuit with respect to alleged voting fraud was a "Bush v. Gore" issue? Some regular citizen couldn't have filed suit against Bush because there was essentially no harm to the individual voter?

I'm guessing there must not be a whole lot to either of these allegations (for McCain or Obama). If there were I would assume the other side would have been all over that from the beginning.

Little story on the ordinary citizen who filed the lawsuit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin