… eligibility to be President, the Federal Courts said thatAmericans' have no standing to sue Obama to determine his eligibility.
Here's the Court's tortured reasoning:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167,180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
Standing may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties' treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions. 418 U.S. at 221.
Consequently, “a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In the present case, assuming as the Court must that Plaintiffs’ allegations are true for the purposes of deciding this jurisdictional motion, the injury, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs is one that would be shared by all the American people. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured because Defendants have not adequately established that the President is truly a “natural born citizen” and because, according to Plaintiffs, President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore an illegitimate president. These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.”4 As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In an effort to distinguish themselves from the rest of the citizenry, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen have both taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. They also suggest that they feel more threatened by the alleged uncertainty surround President Obama’s place of birth and citizenship than many citizens. While the Court accepts that Plaintiffs are more concerned about President Obama’s birthplace.
By way of example, Plaintiffs’ complaint outlines the various failures to adequately establish President Obama’s place of birth “on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People.”Plaintiffs identify the “Irreparable Harm” to be suffered as follows: “If Obama is sworn in as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, there will be substantial and irreparable harm to the stability of the United States, its people, and the plaintiffs.”
Many citizensfeel a greater sense of obligation to bring the present action. Plaintiffs’ motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. Plaintiffs state that they have been injured because President Obama’s birthplace and citizenship have not been established to their satisfaction; this harm is equally applicable to all American citizens.
Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”
While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing. See Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 297 (3d Cir. 2003) (an allegation of potential future property loss, should a municipality disallow a present non-conforming use, cannot demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes because it is conjectural). Without an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action.
Based on this ruling, the American people are suffering "severe injury" by an alleged President trying to overthrow the form of government by huge spending and taxing laws, and a sea change in political ideology from a capitalist, free enterprise, constitutional republic to a dictatorial, socialist-communist oligarchy. As a non-American, Obama is getting away with this because statist lawyers and statist Federal judges are allowing it. Obama has damaged the American economy with his statist-socialist-communist policies. He is pushing a massive, unconstitutional, healthcare bill that will put Government in charge of everyone's lives. Given that every government program (except the military) has been a failure, the American people are being harmed by this Obama-statist government overthrow, and will be harmed in the future by the "Obamacare"healthcare bill, which will cause massive tax increases, probably collapse the economy, and harm Americans by rationing their health care.
Also, by severely damaging the American people with continuing increases in job losses, lost income and ever-increasing taxes, and based on this Federal case, it would be applicable to say that if one were to stop paying taxes, the Government would have no standing to come after that person, since that citizen has caused no harm to the Government. Infact theGovernment is the one harmingall Americans with its irresponsible, harmful, unconstitutional profligate tax and spend policies. This unconstitutional, socialist-communist overthrow of the current government by the unconstitutional Obama Administration, and the unconstitutional "Obama tax and spend policy", is an "injury in fact" against all Americans that is concrete and particularized,and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
Because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an arm of the executive branch, and Obama is the alleged chief executive of the government and alleged chief executive of the branch known as the IRS, if there is no standing to determine his eligibility, then he is a fraud, and the entire executive branch is powerless to exercise it's taxing and enforcement powers–because it has no standing.
An interesting point can be made here. If one is prosecuted for failure to pay taxes, they would have the right to demand ALL evidence against them–including Obama's birth certificates, medical records and school & college records, to determine if he is eligible to run the country, and to determine if any of the laws he signs or upholds, if he is not eligible, are valid.
Therefore, under Article III, Government has no standing to come after citizens who don't pay taxes, since Government has created the actual, concrete harm.
If citizens have no standing to sue their President to determine eligibility because it is causing severe systemic shifts that is currently harming all Americans and will continue to harm them in futuro, then the Government and Administration under the tutelageof aUsurper-In-Chief(Barack Hussein Obama) has no standing to tax its citizens because the tax monies are being used on unconstitutional, treasonous, wasteful and inapplicable programs that are harmfulto all Americans.
Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)