Philip Berg's lawsuit against Barack Obama and the DNC has been dismissed in a Philadelphia Federal Court.
Jeff Schreiber at America's Right is reporting that Judge Surrick finds that Berg lacks "standing," and further from Schreiber:
A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.What this means is that our Federal courts do not consider a possible fraudlent filing for the office of U.S. President, possible fraudlent campaign for President and possible fraudlent taking of the oath of office, and stepping into the Oval Office as an "injury" to the people of this country. That's the bottom line. Until an unqualified person actually takes the office, "we the people" have not been injured.
In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.
So who does have standing, Schrieber asks: "According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that's completely up to Congress to decide."
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.Assuming this is true, are we so naive as to think that Congress does not know this?
Maybe the DNC has properly vetted their candidate, but it appears they may not have done so, simply because they have not put this matter to rest.
I have had numerous commenters claiming that the DNC knows his citizenship status - because, as one commenter said "they check these things, you know." Well, if that is so, why would the Senate not have stepped up with a non-binding resolution declaring his natural born status, as they did on John MaCain's behalf? How incredible is this?
Read Schreiber's entire report which is packed with additional info.