"Evidence" from the birth certificate conspiracy, my analysis, page 3

pretty thorough...

and i must admit you are good at giving responses... i'll leave it at that for now.

would you please address this in your research?

www.israelnationalnews.com...

I've been going around and around with Whatyouknow in regard to the issue of "legal standing", in this thread.

It's my assertation that the cases filed in regard to President Obama's place of birth were NOT heard, but dismissed due to not having "standing" to file them.

I also believe that the only body that the courts do recognize as having legal standing is Congress, and the SCOTUS. Obviously, both are supportive of the President and are not going to file suit themselves.

Let's examine more precisely what "standing" means. It does NOT mean, as some have inferred, a lack of evidence.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.

standing

The person must have a personal stakein the outcome of the controversy.

Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed.

So, it's a matter of the courts interpreting standing as an inability of those filing suit to demonstrate damages.

Now, how can any suit against a sitting President be brought to court? It apparently can't happen, even though it seems clear that IF the President wasn't a naturally-born citizen, that the PEOPLE have been damaged.

For the People by the People............ unless you have the iron to quash it. If the People, the rightful and legal citizens cannot challenge the State, then that is NOT Due Process. That is a Presidential coup. Thus, the POTUS will always be able to keep hidden his long form.





[edit on 15/7/09 by argentus]

reply to post by grahag

---

My hope is that people would put as much energy into building up this country as they do in trying to tear it down, we'd live in a better society.

That is my wish as well. As it stands, this issue is polarizing the nation, rather than galvanizing it. If President Obama is in posession of the document that can cure this situation, why wouldn't he show it?

The citizens of the U.S., more than ever, (IMO) have a need to work together, united with the POTUS they elected. If he has subjugated the Constitution to get into office, the longer it goes on, the greater the division. If he has not, the simple showing of the document will make this issue go away, and we can all go on with the business of repairing the damage to the U.S. systems and economy.

In a very real sense, it is a global issue.

reply to post by livinginacardboardbox

---

Yes that was good link, it would be great if someone could dig up airline records of Obama's mothers flight to Kenya in Aug of 61, that would really sink his ship cause it would prove his mother was in Kenya at time of his birth.

I myself wondered how how he ended up be born in Kenya, his mother was visting the inlaws, but what's the big deal it's just a technicality he should of be born on U.S. soil.
Maybe they can make Kenya the 51st state of these here United States, that will fix it, won't it.



[edit on 15-7-2009 by googolplex]

reply to post by havanaja

---

The agenda of the Obama "birthers" is not truth, their agenda is simply to feed and prolong the controversy and emotions forever, regardless that the truth disproves their whole position.

I am not a "birther". I despise that term. My agenda is the truth, regardless of the outcome. It's a valid question with an ever-growing amount of evidence. It's not a frivolous question, and I don't have any goals of prolonging the controversy, nor of attacking the President.

I want the truth, and I'm not alone in that wish. Simple. Simple question. Simple solution.

reply to post by epete22

---

now how did i know this one would be brought up so your implying what?.. that all obama supporters on ats are?.......
and that they are all disinfo agents ,cia, blah blah blah im sorry but come on, be serious here. Just because someone opposes your views DOES NOT make then cia,mib,disinfo agents and all the other letters in the alphabet. to me that is just a lil tad paranoid even to think like that.

And for clarification on whether African is a race what the heck does it matter? seriously here in the UK we get census forms etc and i have seen many people put African down as what they are etc does that mean that they are all hiding something? As someone said previously its starting to sound like sour grapes from people who voted for the other guy and that certain people don't like the fact there is a black dude in the white house.

whilst there is alot of other more serious issues arising over the world that deserves a hell of a lot more attention people are worried about the presidents birth certificate.

The state feels there is no case to answer, his short certificate was authenticated by the correct people but still people wanna see his full certificate and by not showing it means that he is what? an alien from mars? seriously people get a grip, i for one wouldn't show my full certificate to anyone who isn't in authority to even see it, i dont want the common joe to see all my details and my parents personal details what right do they have to see it? none.

but one thing is certain even if he did show his long certificate etc etc the conspiracies would never die, the new one would be that its a forgery.

people need to chill and conspire about things that actually matter in this world.

and for clarification i am not American, im from the UK and therefor not a supporter or any president so cant be called one

reply to post by googolplex

---

President Obama was born in 1961 -- at least according to the majority of the limited information available.

DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags

US threatens Sweden with watch list sanctions if they don’t prosecute The Pirate Bay.
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags

The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 0 days ago with 12 member flags

Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags

ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags

There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags

Medical Scientists & Doctors Finally Stand Up To The Feds: Suing Them For Spying
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags

WW2 US mutiny in Australia by African-Americans soldiers uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: