Comments on the Berg-Obama legal standing case
American Thinker (article by Mark J. Fitzgibbons) stopped by to respond to D. who left a response here calling Mark J. Fitzgibbons an idiot (I had quoted him). The backstory is: dismissing a challenge to Obama's constitutional qualifications to run for President on grounds that a mere citizen does not have legal standing to sue. I couldn't find a photo of Mr. D., so I googled his image, finding this D shaped exit hole made by an Emerald Ash Borrer. So here's the response.- "First of all, thank you for blogging about the issues I raised in my piece in American Thinker, "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?"
The comment of this person "d" neglects that my piece does in fact address and criticize Senator McCain's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
This person "d" refers to himself as a lawyer, as in "we lawyers." "This" lawyers did address the importance of standing in my article. And I also address, without the luxury of space in that article, the fact that courts have given somewhat wider standing latitude when constitutional rights are being litigated. I know this from having written briefs in constitutional cases, including before the United States Supreme Court. I am also very much aware that the mere raising of a constitutional claim does not create standing. However, as my article does address, the court-made doctrine of standing should not preclude citizens from enforcing the Constitution in this case, and should not be assumed to be broader than the Constitution itself to the point that the Constitution may not be enforced by citizens, which certainly would be the opposite of the intent of that document.
Since I assuredly won't be asking "d" to be co-counsel in any case, I am not worried about his criticism of Mr. Berg's failure establish facts at the pleading stage in a manner consistent with evidentiary standards. Since the case was dismissed before discovery was had, we do not know whether the allegations contained in the pleadings lacked merit or not. And I know that "d," as one of "we lawyers," would be able to blog about the best evidence rule for all the people who have relied on FactCheck.org as conclusive evidence of Senator Obama's natural born citizen status.
Therefore, as you so aptly state, lawyers and judges do sometimes "use exactly the same law and/or regulation to mean the exact opposite if its intent." The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about that, and how it aided the fall of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the "inconvenience of facts," a term employed by "d," may have been avoided by resorting to judicial doctrines instead of the Constitution itself, which is why the decision in the Berg case has offended so many people."
I revisited the original post at American Thinker and found 81 comments. I don't know if D dropped by to offer suggestions there or if he just picks on little old ladies. But the responses are well worth reading, if you have the time.
Posts
6 comments:
I don't know what kind of lawyer he is, but he is a truly crappy historian: "The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about that, and how it aided the fall of the Roman Empire."
Tacitus (56 - 117) couldn't have written about how it "aided the fall" of the Roman Empire, since the Empire (western Roman empire) still had 300 years to go.
I don't know RL, in this case I'd go with "aided"--doesn't seem to be a time line. You might want to go over and drop that suggestion, since I didn't write the piece. It's like Obama being only 8 years old during the SDS and Weatherman days and Bill Ayers bombing days, but still nursing at the breast of the movement years later. As in 2008.
From the Amazon review (I've never read Tacitus):"Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" recount the major historical events from the years shortly before the death of Augustus up to the death of Nero in AD 68. With clarity and vivid intensity he describes the reign of terror under the corrupt Tiberius, the great fire of Rome during the time of Nero, and the wars, poisonings, scandals, conspiracies and murders that were part of imperial life. Despite his claim that the Annals were written objectively, Tacitus' account is sharply critical of the emperors' excesses and fearful for the future of Imperial Rome, while also filled with a longing for its past glories."
Sounds like the run up to the "fall" to me.
LOL.. a 300 year run up? There were quite a few good emperors after Nero. However that may be, Tacitus could not be writing about how the events he described aided in the fall of the Roman Empire. It was still in existence. Perhaps American Thinker worded it incorrectly. However, that is his problem, not mine.
Yes, I know he wrote it. That is why I criticized what he wrote and not you. You posted it and allowed comments. What would you suggest I comment about instead, the weather? Something equally random?
Go tell him your theories of history, that downfalls don't happen years ahead, that there are no clear warnings. Like our latest, to bankrupt the coal industry with cap and trade (while also killing the natural gas and oil industries).
Tacitus was talking about the political problems of HIS time, not the ones 300 years later. American Thinker didn't say the Tacitus was being prescient.
You'll note the issues you're referencing are current problems... not ones present since the birth of our Nation (much less 300 hundred years ago).
I guess I need to argue with you since you were the one that said: "Sounds like the run up to the "fall" to me." Or do you no longer take ownership of the things you say?
Post a Comment