VegasGeorge
10-25-2008, 09:10 PM
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.
Judge Surrick ruled that Berg (the Plaintiff) lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
This is an incredibly bad decision! Every citizen of the United States should have the right to bring an action to challenge the legal qualifications of anyone who's name is placed on a ballot. It bears directly on the sanctity of the right to vote. There is no right to vote, if the proposed candidates are ineligible. The injured party is the voter, and there is no one better qualified to bring the action than the injured party.
A proper analysis of this question must entail consideration of the consequences of electing an ineligible candidate. Once that candidate's ineligibility was determined, he or she would have to be removed from office. That would leave a vacancy to be filled by someone else. Someone who's name was not on the ballot for the same office and/or who did not receive the same votes. That result would destroy the election. An alternative would be to run the election all over again. That would cost the citizens of this country millions of dollars. Neither alternative is acceptable to me.
Any court considering such a case should first consider the basic merits of the pleading. If there were threshold evidence matters to be resolved, such as production of an authentic birth certificate, the parties would have the opportunity to do that. Then, if the allegations were rendered moot or deemed patently groundless, the case would be summarily dismissed. That is the way cases are normally handled. That is not what happened here.
This decision is a travesty. I am embarrassed for our legal system.
Judge Surrick ruled that Berg (the Plaintiff) lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."
This is an incredibly bad decision! Every citizen of the United States should have the right to bring an action to challenge the legal qualifications of anyone who's name is placed on a ballot. It bears directly on the sanctity of the right to vote. There is no right to vote, if the proposed candidates are ineligible. The injured party is the voter, and there is no one better qualified to bring the action than the injured party.
A proper analysis of this question must entail consideration of the consequences of electing an ineligible candidate. Once that candidate's ineligibility was determined, he or she would have to be removed from office. That would leave a vacancy to be filled by someone else. Someone who's name was not on the ballot for the same office and/or who did not receive the same votes. That result would destroy the election. An alternative would be to run the election all over again. That would cost the citizens of this country millions of dollars. Neither alternative is acceptable to me.
Any court considering such a case should first consider the basic merits of the pleading. If there were threshold evidence matters to be resolved, such as production of an authentic birth certificate, the parties would have the opportunity to do that. Then, if the allegations were rendered moot or deemed patently groundless, the case would be summarily dismissed. That is the way cases are normally handled. That is not what happened here.
This decision is a travesty. I am embarrassed for our legal system.