That Obama eligibility issue could come back again

[mistermack]

Thats what happens when you have too many government laws, it was so much more simple in the old days no darkies

Yeh, that was the good old days, when you could concentrate on hating the jews. And gypsies. And catholics.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

[Coito ergo sum]

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state, to an American mother. He is a "natural born American citizen." End of story.

Bingo. The "2 American citizen parents" argument is bullshit. You don't even need one citizen parent. A citizen from birth in the US is a natural born citizen. A person born in the United States and not subject to another foreign power is a natural born citizen of the US. Example: Chester Arthur. And, Barry Goldwater, born in a US "territory" and McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone.

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, 1866.

[Coito ergo sum]

Load of crock, I have two cousins who are 'natural born Americans', and to the best of my knowledge, neither of their parents even was a citizen at the time they were born.

Then they are not "natural born citizens." They are just "citizens." That's the core of the entire argument about Obama's eligibility, that a person not born to two US citizens (regardless of where born) is not a "natural born citizen" under the original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. It's called the "Vatel Theory," and it's a valid and strong legal theory that deserves to be carefully considered by the Supreme Court, whichever way it comes out.

You overstate your position.

You can't claim the "original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers." You don' know that. You haven't proved it. You haven't cited a single authority or quoted a single "Founder" or "Ratifier" that says what you said. So, it's as legitimate to say that it was the "original intent" of "the Founders" that they thought being born here to residents of the US (non-transitory) was sufficient.

Moreover, it may never be accepted for review by the SCOTUS. These people are entitled to file their petitions in court, but the SCOTUS only decides a few cases a year out of 1,000s of petitions for certiorari. They likely will abstain from this because it's a political question. The executive and legislative branches need to figure it out. Either they need to add a definition to the constitution, or they need to enact a federal statute providing a definition.

Some State needs to boot someone from the ballot and then the candidate himself can file for a mandatory injunction requiring the state to list him on the ballot and get an expedited hearing. That might work. Until a Secretary of State of some State or another has the balls to knock a candidate off the ballot on the strength of the NBC clause, then the SCOTUS won't touch and the court won't do the Secretary of States' jobs for them.

These taxpayer challenges are nonsense, and that's why they tend to get booted on standing and other preliminary issues of procedure and technical questions of who a proper party plaintiff is. Having Johnny Joe Dickweed from Podunk, Kentucky file a claim in some federal court claiming that as a taxpayer he has standing to sue to challenge the eligibility of any Presidential candidate will simply never be upheld.

[Seth]

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state, to an American mother. He is a "natural born American citizen." End of story.

Bingo. The "2 American citizen parents" argument is bullshit. You don't even need one citizen parent. A citizen from birth in the US is a natural born citizen. A person born in the United States and not subject to another foreign power is a natural born citizen of the US. Example: Chester Arthur. And, Barry Goldwater, born in a US "territory" and McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone.

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, 1866.

Er, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1866 is not the arbiter of the law, the Supreme Court is, and in that regard, the fat lady hasn't yet sung. There is strong evidence that the term "natural born citizen" does indeed mean a citizen born of two US citizen parents, and the appropriate, and only place where that question can be resolved finally is the Supreme Court. And that's exactly where it should be heard, as soon as possible, to finally resolve the issue and put it to rest.

And you well know that just because Chester Arthur, John McCain, Barry Goldwater or for that matter Mitt Romney weren't challenged on that basis doesn't mean the law is not as the Vatel theory holds.

Nor does your "bullshit" analysis constitute valid legal precedent.

[Seth]

Load of crock, I have two cousins who are 'natural born Americans', and to the best of my knowledge, neither of their parents even was a citizen at the time they were born.

Then they are not "natural born citizens." They are just "citizens." That's the core of the entire argument about Obama's eligibility, that a person not born to two US citizens (regardless of where born) is not a "natural born citizen" under the original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. It's called the "Vatel Theory," and it's a valid and strong legal theory that deserves to be carefully considered by the Supreme Court, whichever way it comes out.

You overstate your position.

You can't claim the "original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers." You don' know that. You haven't proved it. You haven't cited a single authority or quoted a single "Founder" or "Ratifier" that says what you said. So, it's as legitimate to say that it was the "original intent" of "the Founders" that they thought being born here to residents of the US (non-transitory) was sufficient.

All that information can be found in the various briefs supporting the Vatel theory. I'm not going to restate them in detail here.

Moreover, it may never be accepted for review by the SCOTUS. These people are entitled to file their petitions in court, but the SCOTUS only decides a few cases a year out of 1,000s of petitions for certiorari. They likely will abstain from this because it's a political question. The executive and legislative branches need to figure it out. Either they need to add a definition to the constitution, or they need to enact a federal statute providing a definition.

Quite right, it might not be granted certiorari, but then again it might, and IMHO, it should be granted cert so that the matter can be fully and finally resolved and the controversy put to rest forever. Do you have a problem with that?

Some State needs to boot someone from the ballot and then the candidate himself can file for a mandatory injunction requiring the state to list him on the ballot and get an expedited hearing. That might work. Until a Secretary of State of some State or another has the balls to knock a candidate off the ballot on the strength of the NBC clause, then the SCOTUS won't touch and the court won't do the Secretary of States' jobs for them.

Yup, that's what needs to happen.

These taxpayer challenges are nonsense, and that's why they tend to get booted on standing and other preliminary issues of procedure and technical questions of who a proper party plaintiff is. Having Johnny Joe Dickweed from Podunk, Kentucky file a claim in some federal court claiming that as a taxpayer he has standing to sue to challenge the eligibility of any Presidential candidate will simply never be upheld.

That is a problem, particularly given the fact that Joe Dickweed has a constitutional right to be absolutely certain that the person serving as President of the United States is actually fully qualified to do so. This practice of denying standing to citizens to sue to determine such important issues is itself unconstitutional in my view, and represents a deliberate and calculated infringement of the rights of citizens to hold their government accountable to the Constitution.

[Coito ergo sum]

Load of crock, I have two cousins who are 'natural born Americans', and to the best of my knowledge, neither of their parents even was a citizen at the time they were born.

Then they are not "natural born citizens." They are just "citizens." That's the core of the entire argument about Obama's eligibility, that a person not born to two US citizens (regardless of where born) is not a "natural born citizen" under the original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. It's called the "Vatel Theory," and it's a valid and strong legal theory that deserves to be carefully considered by the Supreme Court, whichever way it comes out.

You overstate your position.

You can't claim the "original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers." You don' know that. You haven't proved it. You haven't cited a single authority or quoted a single "Founder" or "Ratifier" that says what you said. So, it's as legitimate to say that it was the "original intent" of "the Founders" that they thought being born here to residents of the US (non-transitory) was sufficient.

All that information can be found in the various briefs supporting the Vatel theory. I'm not going to restate them in detail here.

You don't need to restate them in detail -- you could just summarize which founding fathers said what you said they intended, and provide a link.

Moreover, it may never be accepted for review by the SCOTUS. These people are entitled to file their petitions in court, but the SCOTUS only decides a few cases a year out of 1,000s of petitions for certiorari. They likely will abstain from this because it's a political question. The executive and legislative branches need to figure it out. Either they need to add a definition to the constitution, or they need to enact a federal statute providing a definition.

Quite right, it might not be granted certiorari, but then again it might, and IMHO, it should be granted cert so that the matter can be fully and finally resolved and the controversy put to rest forever. Do you have a problem with that?

I have the same problem with that that I have with any other frivolous case clogging up the court dockets. Add to that the fact that advancing the notion gets pinned on the Republican party, it actually helps Obama because people think it's a nutty idea.

There are cases on file in federal court now. Federal court process is nationwide, so they ought to be subpoenaing documents they need from the State of Hawaii and from other countries thought the Hague Convention that deals with international service of process. If they're not doing that, then that would indicate to me that they aren't serious. That's basic.

And, where are the depositions being taken of the State of Hawaii officials? They can sit a designated representative of the State of Hawaii down and get the details of what the records in Hawaii show.

Some State needs to boot someone from the ballot and then the candidate himself can file for a mandatory injunction requiring the state to list him on the ballot and get an expedited hearing. That might work. Until a Secretary of State of some State or another has the balls to knock a candidate off the ballot on the strength of the NBC clause, then the SCOTUS won't touch and the court won't do the Secretary of States' jobs for them.

Yup, that's what needs to happen.

Don't bet on it. That would mean that a Secretary of State for a given state has looked at the evidence and made a discretionary decision based on the evidence that the candidate has not complied. They will guarantee themselves a lawsuit, and unless they think their legal position is good, they aren't going to do it. There are plenty of Repubican Secretaries of State and Governors around the country. The fact that they won't do it says a lot.

These taxpayer challenges are nonsense, and that's why they tend to get booted on standing and other preliminary issues of procedure and technical questions of who a proper party plaintiff is. Having Johnny Joe Dickweed from Podunk, Kentucky file a claim in some federal court claiming that as a taxpayer he has standing to sue to challenge the eligibility of any Presidential candidate will simply never be upheld.

That is a problem, particularly given the fact that Joe Dickweed has a constitutional right to be absolutely certain that the person serving as President of the United States is actually fully qualified to do so.

What provision says that? Any individuals "absolute certainty" is not now and never has been an issue or a constitutional requirement. The law doesn't require that 300,000,000 US citizens each have absolute certainty about anything. What is required is that the candidate for President qualify to be on the ballot in a particular State. That's it. It doesn't matter what Johnny Dickweed is or is not certain about.

This practice of denying standing to citizens to sue to determine such important issues is itself unconstitutional in my view, and represents a deliberate and calculated infringement of the rights of citizens to hold their government accountable to the Constitution.

On what basis? What constitutional provision is being violated? An Amendment? Which section or clause of Article III? Anything?

The Founders and Ratifiers -- lol -- did not intend that any citizen could file a lawsuit any time they get pissed off and want to explore some constitutional argument in court. That's not what courts are for. They are for deciding Cases and Controversies, not to issue advisory opinions. A person has to have a justiciable injury that allegedly is caused by the Defendant -- a particularized issue more than just a general gripe common to everyone.

In many of your arguments you seem to try to cast the SCOTUS as some sort of general arbiter of constitutional issues. It isn't. It decides only those issues that are brought before it in existing Cases/Controversies involving parties with standing and capacity to sue and who have suffered a justiciable injury. It's not a legal review board.

[amused]

Birthers: Racists masquerading as concern trolls.

At least the overt racists are honest about it.

[Seth]

Birthers: Racists masquerading as concern trolls.

At least the overt racists are honest about it.

Anti-birthers: Marxist Progressive bigots and deranged ideologues masquerading as concern trolls.

Just because someone questions Obama's qualification to be President doesn't mean they automatically object to his race. More likely they don't like his politics, which are hard-left Progressive and Marxist in nature. I'd oppose him if he were as lily-white as the driven snow because he's an evil fucking asswipe of a Progressive and a Marxist who has no business having any say at all in our government. He's a pathological liar and as deceitful as the day is long, and he's a danger to the Republic, like every other Progressive and Marxist.

Not a damned thing to do with his race at all.

[Tero]

What, you found a politician who is not a liar? Seth.

[Seth]

Load of crock, I have two cousins who are 'natural born Americans', and to the best of my knowledge, neither of their parents even was a citizen at the time they were born.

Then they are not "natural born citizens." They are just "citizens." That's the core of the entire argument about Obama's eligibility, that a person not born to two US citizens (regardless of where born) is not a "natural born citizen" under the original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. It's called the "Vatel Theory," and it's a valid and strong legal theory that deserves to be carefully considered by the Supreme Court, whichever way it comes out.

You overstate your position.

You can't claim the "original intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers." You don' know that. You haven't proved it. You haven't cited a single authority or quoted a single "Founder" or "Ratifier" that says what you said. So, it's as legitimate to say that it was the "original intent" of "the Founders" that they thought being born here to residents of the US (non-transitory) was sufficient.

All that information can be found in the various briefs supporting the Vatel theory. I'm not going to restate them in detail here.

You don't need to restate them in detail -- you could just summarize which founding fathers said what you said they intended, and provide a link.

I did, in another thread. You ignored them. Not going to bother again.

Moreover, it may never be accepted for review by the SCOTUS. These people are entitled to file their petitions in court, but the SCOTUS only decides a few cases a year out of 1,000s of petitions for certiorari. They likely will abstain from this because it's a political question. The executive and legislative branches need to figure it out. Either they need to add a definition to the constitution, or they need to enact a federal statute providing a definition.

Quite right, it might not be granted certiorari, but then again it might, and IMHO, it should be granted cert so that the matter can be fully and finally resolved and the controversy put to rest forever. Do you have a problem with that?

I have the same problem with that that I have with any other frivolous case clogging up the court dockets.

You just think it's frivolous because it doesn't comport with your own preconceived notions of what the phrase means.

There are cases on file in federal court now. Federal court process is nationwide, so they ought to be subpoenaing documents they need from the State of Hawaii and from other countries thought the Hague Convention that deals with international service of process. If they're not doing that, then that would indicate to me that they aren't serious. That's basic.

I believe they are doing just that.

And, where are the depositions being taken of the State of Hawaii officials? They can sit a designated representative of the State of Hawaii down and get the details of what the records in Hawaii show.

I believe it's all in process. But as you well know, such things take time, particularly when the defendants and the courts are laggards deliberately so as to delay the proceedings until it's too late to stop the election. It's political as well as legal, and you know it.

Some State needs to boot someone from the ballot and then the candidate himself can file for a mandatory injunction requiring the state to list him on the ballot and get an expedited hearing. That might work. Until a Secretary of State of some State or another has the balls to knock a candidate off the ballot on the strength of the NBC clause, then the SCOTUS won't touch and the court won't do the Secretary of States' jobs for them.

Yup, that's what needs to happen.

Don't bet on it. That would mean that a Secretary of State for a given state has looked at the evidence and made a discretionary decision based on the evidence that the candidate has not complied. They will guarantee themselves a lawsuit, and unless they think their legal position is good, they aren't going to do it. There are plenty of Repubican Secretaries of State and Governors around the country. The fact that they won't do it says a lot.

Yup, takes courage to stand up to the panoply of forces against them, that much is true. I wouldn't be surprised if an Obama hit-team took out a Secretary of State who had the temerity to do so. Just look at what happened to all those people close to the Clintons when they posed potential political threats. Being a Clinton acquaintance, friend or employee was an actuarial anomaly of gargantuan proportions, and I wouldn't put it past Obama to do the same sort of thing, all neatly deniable and covertly.

These taxpayer challenges are nonsense, and that's why they tend to get booted on standing and other preliminary issues of procedure and technical questions of who a proper party plaintiff is. Having Johnny Joe Dickweed from Podunk, Kentucky file a claim in some federal court claiming that as a taxpayer he has standing to sue to challenge the eligibility of any Presidential candidate will simply never be upheld.

That is a problem, particularly given the fact that Joe Dickweed has a constitutional right to be absolutely certain that the person serving as President of the United States is actually fully qualified to do so.

What provision says that?

The one that says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any individuals "absolute certainty" is not now and never has been an issue or a constitutional requirement. The law doesn't require that 300,000,000 US citizens each have absolute certainty about anything. What is required is that the candidate for President qualify to be on the ballot in a particular State. That's it. It doesn't matter what Johnny Dickweed is or is not certain about.

The power to determine if a candidate is qualified to be on the ballot is just one of many powers Johnny Dickweed and the other 300,000,000 of us have DELEGATED to the states or to the federal government. We didn't abdicate them, we delegated them. The power flows from the People to the state and to the federal government, not the other way around. The Constitution sets the criteria to be President, and no state may lawfully depart from that criteria in allowing an individual on the ballot who is unqualified to be there. Therefore, every political delegate responsible for determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate has a duty to Johnny Dickweed and every other citizen to follow the law in making that determination, and any citizen, including Johnny Dickweed, has a right to challenge that decision in court if the citizen believes, and/or has evidence that the candidate is not in fact qualified to hold that office and may not therefore lawfully be placed on the ballot.

This practice of denying standing to citizens to sue to determine such important issues is itself unconstitutional in my view, and represents a deliberate and calculated infringement of the rights of citizens to hold their government accountable to the Constitution.

On what basis? What constitutional provision is being violated? An Amendment? Which section or clause of Article III? Anything?

Article II, Section 1, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The Founders and Ratifiers -- lol -- did not intend that any citizen could file a lawsuit any time they get pissed off and want to explore some constitutional argument in court. That's not what courts are for. They are for deciding Cases and Controversies, not to issue advisory opinions. A person has to have a justiciable injury that allegedly is caused by the Defendant -- a particularized issue more than just a general gripe common to everyone.

A President who does not meet the qualifications to be President is a "case or controversy." A controversy over the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" as it relates to Article II Section 1 is absolutely a controversy that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over, and the federal circuits have original jurisdiction over under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

In many of your arguments you seem to try to cast the SCOTUS as some sort of general arbiter of constitutional issues. It isn't. It decides only those issues that are brought before it in existing Cases/Controversies involving parties with standing and capacity to sue and who have suffered a justiciable injury. It's not a legal review board.

Every citizen in the United States has suffered a justiciable injury if the person occuping the Oval Office is unqualified to hold that office. Every citizen in the United States will suffer a justiciable injury if a person unqualified to hold the office of President is allowed on the ballot of any state.

Therefore, every citizen has, or should have standing to sue in federal court for a determination of the controversy. It's called a motion for declaratory judgment:

A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy. A petition for a declaratory judgment asks the court to define the legal relationship between the parties and their rights with respect to the matter before the court. A declaratory judgment is binding but is distinguished from other judgments or court opinions in that it doesn't provide a method of enforcement.

For example, a party to a contract may seek the legal interpretation of a contract to determine the parties' rights, or an insured may seek a determination of insurance coverage under a policy. In a will contest, a party may seek a declaratory judgment to determine who is entitled to inherit under the will or to define what part of an estate a beneficiary is entitled to receive.

9.3 Declaratory Judgment Act

Updated 2010

The Declaratory Judgment Act offers a unique mechanism by which advocates may seek to remedy ongoing violations of statutory or constitutional provisions./119/ The Act may authorize broad, classwide declaratory and injunctive relief without resort to class action procedures./120/ Distinctive features of the Act:

allow prospective defendants to sue to establish their nonliability/121/ and
afford a party threatened with liability an opportunity for adjudication before its adversary commences litigation./122/

However, the statute makes no express reference to, and creates no special preference for, the resolution of such “anticipatory” disputes. A party need not be a prospective defendant in order to bring an action under the Act./123/ Clearly, however, the unique declaratory form of relief created by the statute was intended to resolve pending or threatened controversies before the need for coercive intervention was required./124/ Section 1 of the Act provides, in relevant part:

In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ...any court of the United States ... may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment and shall be reviewable as such./125/

The availability of declaratory relief was intended to offer a milder alternative to the general injunction remedy./126/ Yet, section 2 of the Act specifies that “[f]urther or necessary or proper relief based upon a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”/127/ Such relief may include damages or injunctive remedies, which are considered ancillary to the enforcement of the declaratory judgment./128/
9.3.A. “Case or Controversy” and Jurisdictional Requirements

A party seeking declaratory relief under the statute must present an “actual controversy” in order to satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III./129/ The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended as a device for rendering mere advisory opinions. The case must involve a controversy that is substantial and concrete, must touch the legal relations of parties with adverse interests, and must be subject to specific relief through a decree of conclusive character./130/ Like any other federal court plaintiff, a claimant seeking relief under the Act also must satisfy the three requirements for constitutional standing./131/ Yet, even when a request for injunctive relief has become moot, declaratory relief has remained viable when an "immediate and definite" policy continues to affect a "present interest."/132/

While the Act enlarges the range of remedies available to federal court litigants, it does not confer an independent basis for federal jurisdiction./133/ The Supreme Court described the Act as “procedural” in its operation and as intended simply to place another remedial arrow in the district court’s quiver./134/ Accordingly, any complaint seeking relief under the Act must invoke an independent basis for federal jurisdiction./135/
9.3.B. Discretionary Nature of the Remedies

The Declaratory Judgment Act confers on the federal courts unusual and substantial discretion in determining whether to “declare” the rights of litigants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statute permits, but does not require, a federal court to issue a declaratory judgment./136/ Accordingly, “n the declaratory judgment context, the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration.”/137/

Not surprisingly, a substantial body of case law has developed in conjunction with disputes over whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in proceeding (or declining to proceed) upon a claim for relief brought under the Act./138/ It is well settled that the district court’s exercise of discretion should be informed by a number of prudential factors, including: (1) considerations of practicality and efficient judicial administration; (2) the functions and limitations of the federal judicial power; (3) traditional principles of equity, comity, and federalism; (4) Eleventh Amendment and other constitutional concerns; and (5) the public interest./139/ Perhaps the most important factors are whether a declaratory judgment will serve a useful purpose and resolve the controversy between the parties./140/

Notwithstanding these general principles, most disputes over the proper exercise of statutory discretion arise in cases where jurisdiction is founded upon diversity of citizenship, where the claims of the plaintiff (typically an insurance company) arise under state law, and where parallel or related state court proceedings are either pending, contemplated, or available./141/ In such circumstances the district court’s discretion is guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America and its considerable progeny/142/. Brillhart evaluated whether the federal court should refrain from exercising its discretion under the Act in favor of actual or potential state court litigation involving the same parties and issues./143/ In contrast to the situation presented in cases like Brillhart, a district court should not hesitate to entertain a declaratory judgment action brought by legal aid advocates seeking to remedy ongoing violations of federal law./144/
9.3.C. Remedies

The unique feature of the Declaratory Judgment Act is its authorization to “declare” the rights and legal relations of the parties to the controversy; such declarations have the force and effect of a final judgment./145/ Congress plainly intended declaratory relief to substitute, in appropriate cases, for the “strong medicine” of an injunction./146/ Because a declaratory judgment does not have the coercive power of an injunction, a lesser showing is required to obtain declaratory relief./147/ The tradtitional four factors required for injuctive relief, including irreparable injury, is not required for a declaratory judgment./148/

The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the issuance of declaratory relief should have a strong deterrent effect rendering more coercive remedies unnecessary./149/ However, if a declaration of rights alone does not deter parties or officials from proceeding (or continuing) to violate federal law, the Act specifically authorizes the party in whose favor the declaration is rendered to seek “further necessary or proper relief” to aid enforcement of the judgment./150/

Generally, the potential reach of an injunctive remedy implicates the jurisdictional power of the court to bind parties and enforce judgments./151/ Arguably, absent a certified class, an injunctive order may not run affirmatively in favor of persons (or class of persons), other than the named plaintiffs./152/ However, a number of courts upheld the issuance, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, of broad injunctive relief directed against a defendant government agency or official to remedy an ongoing violation of federal law even in the absence of a certified class./153/ Under the reasoning of these decisions, an injunction issued to correct a defendant’s policy or practice which is unlawful, not only as to the named plaintiff but also as to others, is not overbroad, notwithstanding the absence of a certified plaintiff class./154/

Over the years, legal aid advocates have successfully obtained broad relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act for their clients in cases involving civil rights, public benefits, social security, health care, housing, and labor issues./155/ The remedies afforded by the Act are particularly suited for attacking and correcting illegal policies, practices, and rules that harm large numbers of persons.

____________________________________________________________________________________

119. Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

3.1 Standing

Updated 2011

Attorneys need to understand the law of standing in order to minimize the likelihood of having to litigate the issue. Avoiding a standing defense requires a careful selection of plaintiffs, thoughtful choice of claims and relief sought, and specific allegation of facts in the complaint. Skillful pleading, therefore, should focus not only on the merits of the claims but also on the standing of the plaintiffs to advance them. Failure to do so may result in delay of the case at best, and dismissal of the case at worst.
3.1.A. Overview

The law of standing has its roots in Article III’s case and controversy requirement./1/ The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-part test for standing. The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires the plaintiff to establish:

First ... an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”/2/

The injury in fact implicit in a person not qualified to hold the office of President needs hardly be illuminated. The power of the office over the administration of laws in the United States and the direct impact on citizens of those administrative acts are unquestionably a concrete and particularized threat to the legal right of every citizen that the federal administration be headed by a person legally qualified to hold that office. The imminence of the threat is likewise obvious if Obama is not in fact qualified as a "natural born citizen, and the causal connection is his running for the office. And if the Supreme Court renders a decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, which is nothing more than the Court stating what the law is in the matter, which is within it's jurisdiction and power, the injury will be redressed without further action by the Court to declare Obama ineligible because the declaration alone will disqualify him from running or holding the office, because the facts of his parentage are not in dispute.

Therefore, the federal courts have full authority to resolve this situation through the Declaratory Judgment Act and the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction because it is a matter of Law, according to Article III, Section 2, and both citizens and states have standing to sue for such a declaratory judgment to protect their constitutional right to a fully-qualified President.

[Seth]

What, you found a politician who is not a liar? Seth.

Did I say that?

[Tero]

Well, what was the point of calling Obama a liar? Simply stating that his policies are not yours is enough, for any politician.
Lies are all business for them.

[Tyrannical]

I wonder if they tried to piggy back Mark Rubio on this issue

I keep hearing his name mentioned as a possible VP, but he was born in the US to two non-citizen parents. That's twice as unnatural as Obama

[Coito ergo sum]

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii 2 years after it became a state, to an American mother. He is a "natural born American citizen." End of story.

Bingo. The "2 American citizen parents" argument is bullshit. You don't even need one citizen parent. A citizen from birth in the US is a natural born citizen. A person born in the United States and not subject to another foreign power is a natural born citizen of the US. Example: Chester Arthur. And, Barry Goldwater, born in a US "territory" and McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone.

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, 1866.

Er, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1866 is not the arbiter of the law,

Never said he was. But, he's a better authority than you.

the Supreme Court is,

Sometimes is, when someone sues, and when there is a Case and Controversy, and when the Supreme Court accepts certiorari. Until then, lower courts are, and the other branches of government make their own determinations.

and in that regard, the fat lady hasn't yet sung.

And the SCOTUS may never sing that song.

There is strong evidence that the term "natural born citizen" does indeed mean a citizen born of two US citizen parents,

No there isn't. Not in my view, and so far no court has agreed with you, and so far not a single Republican Secretary of State or Governor has agreed with you. If the evidence was strong, then a political enemy of Obama, and there are many, would have booted him from the ballot and fought the fight.

and the appropriate, and only place where that question can be resolved finally is the Supreme Court. And that's exactly where it should be heard, as soon as possible, to finally resolve the issue and put it to rest.

The SCOTUS has to receive an appeal via writ of certiorari, and yet nobody has done that. And, no election authority has booted Obama from the ballot.

And you well know that just because Chester Arthur, John McCain, Barry Goldwater or for that matter Mitt Romney weren't challenged on that basis doesn't mean the law is not as the Vatel theory holds.

It shows that people didn't think the Vatel theory worth much, since all those people had massively aggressive political enemies who were champing at the bit to knock them down any way any how.

Nor does your "bullshit" analysis constitute valid legal precedent.

I did not suggest that it did. I've provided more authority than you, though.

I also know the system. And, we just don't have a SCOTUS of the kind you think we have, that is some general legal review board that assesses the constitutionality of statutes. If you want that, you're going to need a Constitutional amendment.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wonder if they tried to piggy back Mark Rubio on this issue

I keep hearing his name mentioned as a possible VP, but he was born in the US to two non-citizen parents. That's twice as unnatural as Obama

I think that a Romney/Rubio candidacy would be a good team. Serious, intelligent folks, who don't do more than pay lip-service to the religious right. Plus, Rubio could seal Florida for Romney, which is a must win state, and Romney being from Massachusetts and Michigan takes the fight to Obama territory.