Fed Judge Throws Out Berg v. Obama Lawsuit? Or did he?

Originally posted by LibertyOrDeath008
You have to realize that Obama supporters are so brainwashed that they could care less even if he wasn't born in the U.S. They are more loyal to him than they are the constitution. I am not a McCain or Obama supporter so I have no political reasons to try to get to the bottom of this, only constitutional ones. This is a constitutional crisis no matter what party you support (I would hope neither).

And I think that's a little extreme to say that people would still cry conspiracy even if he showed up at our houses with the document in hand. I know I would be convinced either way if I could hold a hard copy but I know that's never going to happen so this Berg lawsuit is the best chance we have to verify if a candidate that is running for the highest office in the country is eligible for that job. This is not a partisan issue!!

If he can produce a hard copy for those shills over at factcheck.org to tout around than why won't he produce one that is being requested by a court of law in this country. Hmm what's he hiding?

Originally posted by daddyroo45
You know,Berg should just release all his "evidence"to the press.The tape recording of Obama's grandmother.The documentation of school records in Indonesia.Even the "evidence showing Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan.Let the public see the "evidence"and judge it for themselves.

We are NOT under Martial Law currently.

I have court ruling that occured in the Middle 1800's at the time of the civil war, and during Msrtial Law under Lincoln. The courts ruled that Martial Law may only occur momentarily, not as a blanket Order. Martial Law may only occur at the location of the courthouse town where the courthose is being burned down. Martial Law mau only occur where no lawful government is possible. This is what the court ruled during lincoln's time. Martial Law can only exist where government is not able to carry out ordinary functions. If the town hall is blown up, then martial law occurs in that town, at the location of the situation, not throughout the whole country, or even the state, or even an entire city.

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
reply to post by Tiamanicus

---

Tiamanicus If you would be so gracious to do two things....

Please decode the "legaleeze" the way YOU read it.

And please, OH PLEASE, tell me you can see a way for all this to wind up NOT being chaotic.

No sarcasm, I ask sincerely.

Thanking you in advance...........

Originally posted by Tiamanicus


I am sorry, I guess I do not understand what you would like these things for? To prove I cannot fake being a law student as well as any other random person on this page? I can, unfortunately, my point is not to prove I can lie well, it was that there was really nothing in that post that showed any indepth knowledge in any way, then it continued with opining and conjecture all somehow given credibility by simply claiming to study law for 15 years. Ok, how about the fact that I disagree, and apparently so does the judge in the case. Really need more confirmation that I am right than that? Are you ready to take the word of a stranger online claiming to STUDY law for 15 years over the judge that actually presided?

During the Warren Court era, the Supreme Court freely found implied rights of action. As the Court explained in the 1964 case of J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, "it is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose." Courts operating under this framework frequently found that private rights of action were an appropriate supplement to administrative action, even where Congress had not expressly authorized private rights of action.

More recently, however, the Supreme Court has taken a tougher line on implied rights of action. Judicial conservatives distrust the notion that there even exists any such thing as a "congressional purpose" that goes beyond a statute's text. Conservatives also tend to dislike lawsuits more generally. Thus, as the Court has turned to the right in the last forty years, it has enunciated a stricter standard for finding an implied right of action.

How strict? Consider the 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval. There, the Court accepted that there is a private right of action to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars certain forms of invidious discrimination by entities that receive federal funding. The Court also accepted (at least for the sake of argument) that the Department of Justice could, by regulation, bar not only intentional discrimination but also practices that have a discriminatory effect on protected groups. Nonetheless, Justice Scalia said for the Court in Sandoval that there was no private right of action to enforce the Justice Department's disparate impact regulation.

I am sorry, I guess I do not understand what you would like these things for? To prove I cannot fake being a law student as well as any other random person on this page?

.........it was that there was really nothing in that post that showed any indepth knowledge in any way, then it continued with opining and conjecture all somehow given credibility by simply claiming to study law for 15 years.

Ok, how about the fact that I disagree, and apparently so does the judge in the case. Really need more confirmation that I am right than that? Are you ready to take the word of a stranger online claiming to STUDY law for 15 years over the judge that actually presided?

Originally posted by truthwarrior7


Where is your evidence that the judge who presided ruled against Berg? I'm waiting for this evidence.

Berg has updated his website with the news of the dismissal and his appeal.

Originally posted by truthwarrior7
I have studied law for 15 years. It appears to me that the lawsuit is going forward. I have seen no evidence that the lawsuit was dismissed other then the reported news story.

In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.