Berg Suit Dismissed, Who Has Standing?

Link: http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/45-press-release-berg-v-obama-dismissed-berg-appealing-to-u-s-supreme-court

© ignoranceorapathy.com Oct 25th 2008
Reported on several blogs and websites the Berg v. Obama No. 08-cv-04083 suit brought in US Federal District Court for the Eastern District of PA has been dismissed. This has been now confirmed by postings on Bergs Obamacrimes.com website.

Americasright.com reports:

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

TexsDarling website TDBLOG has also been very active on this topic
Berg Lawsuit Dismissed [UPDATE x2]
Berg Press Release: Appealing to U.S. Supreme Court

Obamacrimes.com press release:

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Follow up:

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

I stated on this blog that I doubted a judge would want to make a ruling on this issue.
(The Politics of Reality in DC)

I can also state as I did in that essay that there is one group who has standing and the legal authority to challenge Mr. Obama’s citizenship but they as of yet have been silent and I expect they will remain so.

INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), the Immigration service does have the authority to review Mr. Obama’s records. Has a complaint been filed with this agency?

As I stated in that essay, It would be political suicide for the Republican administration (the INS is part of the executive branch) to appear to be investigating and there by attempting to sabotage the campaign of a Democratic Senator. So I see nothing further about this issue being accomplished.

Should the Congress decide to take up the issue and require Obama to produce documents (should he be elected) at the time the Electoral College certifies it’s results to them, they may in fact be able to get to the bottom of this.

The only other remedy I could ponder is that the individual states have no Federal Mandate to place any candidate on a ballot. Therefore it is up to each of the states to verify that a candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot for election within the state.

Here is the catch and I know some “Constitutional Scholar” is going to be all over me for this. The orderly conduct of elections is left up to the states. Each state holds public elections on the day prescribed in the Constitution (first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) to choose a slate of electors for that state. These electors then present themselves to the Electoral College to cast ballots for their state to elect the President. (see the Heritage website for a better understanding of the Electoral College)
So, it is left up to the states to decide who meets the Article II qualifications to appear on the ballot. The states would have standing to remove Obama’s name from their ballots since he has not been proven beyond doubt to meet all the qualifications of Article II.

This process is one of the more brilliant of our founders. It also why myself and syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz expound on the fact that this country is not a “Democracy”, we do not live in a Democratic nation and I for one am very grateful for that. We live in a Representative Republic and the Electoral College is one example of such. Democracy equates to Mob Rule. A Representative Republic provides for layers of insulation between the whims of the mob and the good of the country. We elect those who will vote in our stead to pass laws. It provides stability to a system that if left to pure democracy would crumble into a chaos of mobs roaming the streets (sort of like Africa every time there is an election). The system worked better before the Seventeenth Amendment, and to be honest I do not see how Obama could have ever become a U.S. Senator without it.

Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

After the Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

So I will explain what our founders wanted to do with this form of Government to avoid problems like we have seen in recent years.

House of Representatives, members chosen by the people of the individual districts to directly represent the intersts of those people to the national government.

Senate, members chosen from the elected state legislatures to represent the interest of the state as a whole to the national government.

President, to represent the interests of the nation as a whole.
Pure genuis! Then we went and tinckered around with it and made the Senators elected by popular vote of the people, depriving that states of any representation in Washington, and it has been a disaster.

It would appear that the only remedy (if you do not believe Obama is a citizen) would be to force your individual states to require he prove he meets Article II requirements or if he is not willing to do so, remove his name from the ballot, or bar the electors of the state from casting their ballot for Obama in December.