(Note: This took me about an hour to write. Someone is going to get a bill for $500)
(Note 2: Upon the observation from a friend that this analysis is too "pedantic," I'll point out that this only focuses on what the technical terms of the law are right now. The bigger question raised by all of this, of course, is what Stacey and Friends would have the courts do, if they could prove that Obama is not a citizen. Would you have Obama forcibly removed from office, and fire the entire Cabinet? Would you have the judge order the military to now take orders from Joe Biden instead? Yes, there are a whole host of non-technical issues raised in this case. However, I'm focusing on the details and case law only because "The Rep" accused me of not doing my research)
In my post from a few days ago about how he doesn't seem to understand how the American legal system works, "The Rep" left this little nugget in the comments:
The question seems to remain in your mind as to who has the right to ask for details on eligibility. I referred you to case law. You seem unwilling to do research. Not a good sign for getting out of the "average" category in year two.
Well, I'm on campus now, I have some time before my next class, and I have free access to WestLaw as a student (rather than working at a firm that has to pay-per-click). So let's humor Stacey Campfield and see what the case law actually says. Not cases involving football coaches, but honest-to-God federal court cases addressing the question of presidential eligibility (note: you will need a WestLaw account to view some of the cases I'm linking to. You should have access if you work for the state of Tennessee. Otherwise, I apologize).
The only case that has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,
Donofrio v. Wells, was denied certiorari without comment by the SCOTUS. Liberals were a little concerned when Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court, but that was actually a routine matter, since the case was addressed to him initially. And it only requires the agreement of four justices for a case to be granted cert. and be heard before the Court, so between Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, more than one of them did not think there was enough merit in the claims to be heard. And if they didn't even bother to comment on the case, it was probably a unanious decision to not hear it.
But, for lack of citing precedent in that case, let's take a look at the cases that have been heard before the United States District Courts. First up,
Berg v. Obama, 574 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D.Pa. 2008), a case that was eventually joined with
Donofrio for SCOTUS purposes. Petioner claimed that Obama was not a natural-born citizen and thus not eligible to be President. The
pre-trial motions included a motion for extensive and expedited discovery, including the deposition of Obama and the production of third-party documents, including the birth certificate and his alleged Indonesian passport. The court dismissed the case for several reasons. It's a fairly long case mostly resting on the plaintiff's (frivolous) civil-rights claims, but there are two relevant points to draw from it:
- First, plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case because the alleged harm done to him was too remote, too abstract, and, if true, too widely-shared to have been done to him personally. Plaintiff's stake ("concern for the law") is no greater than anyone else in the country, and the harm done to him is too vague and the effects too attenuated to confer standing upon him. Berg, 574 F.Supp.2d at 519.
- Second, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b), "whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue ..., the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 530.
So therefore, Rep, neither you nor the main plaintiff have standing to bring the case because no injury was done to you PERSONALLY, and simply saying that you're concerned about "the law" or the Constitution does not constitute an injury. Somehow, I don't think that "Obama hurts Republicans politically by not doing what we say" constitutes a particular injury. Second, even if you do have standing, the burden is on you, not on him, to prove that he's not a U.S. citizen. The plaintiff in this case tried to go straight to the federal court and demand Obama hand over his documents, without even following any other procedures (FOIA, foe example). You cannot do that because the burden of proof, once again, is on you!
*************************
Next up,
Stamper v. U.S., a case filed the day before the election. It's so current that it does not yet have a Federal Supplement citation; WestLaw cites it as a slip copy.
The plaintiff raised several of the same claims that Stacey and friends are attempting to raise now. Stamper stated in his complaint that Obama must be investigated for possible violations to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution (requiring the President to be a natural-born citizen), that he need to bring the case because Obama had failed to show the documents voluntarily, that the birth certificate published by FactCheck was fake, and that action by the court is necessary "to assuage public concern."
Id. at 2.
The court, once again, ruled that the plaintiff had no standing to bring the case. General concern of injury to the Constitution is insufficient to establish standing; nor is the need to "assuage public concern."
Id. at 4. Neither of these establish an actual injury. Therefore,
Glen Casada is full of crap if he thinks he can use the courts to say "let's just get this thing out there and let's put everybody's mind at ease."
********************
Finally, you have
Cohen v. Obama, . This case was filed after the election seeking to prevent Obama from taking the oath of office, stating that he was not a U.S. citizen. The case was once again dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had no standing to bring the case, using the same rationale as
Berg.
Now, at this point, it may be worth a look at the cases upon which the previous three courts based their opinion. For that we go back to the Supreme Court, and
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-574 (1992). Key holding:
We have consistently held that 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.
This was not some ultra-liberal court conspiracy designed to keep "the people" from raising grievances. No, this was the Rehnquist court, with Scalia delivering the majority opinion (oddly enough, with Souter and Stevens concurring and only Blackmun and O'Connor dissenting, but for different reasons).
Why the requirement that in order to have standing to file a lawsuit, you must show actual, tangible harm done? Because, quite simply, it's one of the biggest checks the legal system has against the constant filing of frivolous lawsuits. If we didn't have that requirement, anyone could file a lawsuit against anyone simply because they didn't like that person. Which, of course, is exactly what Stacey and Friends are attempting to do here.
Now, this isn't to say that a private citizen can't challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate, but
the proper avenue in which to do that is in state courts (lower thresholds for proving injury), prior to the election. By what I can tell, this lawsuit is being filed in federal courts. Not only does recent case law firmly hold that these defendants do not have standing to bring such a lawsuit, but they do not apparently have any evidence on which to bring their claims beyond a general suspicion.
UPDATE: A (conservative) friend pointed out to me that the courts probably also couldn't hear this case on the
political questions doctrine.
