Diary

Voters have no standing to challenge constitutional eligibility of candidates??

REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE (and yes, I mean to shout that so everyone understands this thread is not whether the case has factual basis or not),

From the link on Drudge: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081025/D941NCJG0.html’U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency… Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

Am I missing something or did a federal judge just say a voter can not question the constitutionality of a candidacy because it’s no big deal?????Seriously, a federal judge has just ruled that whether or not a candidate meets the constitutional requirements for the office is irrelevant? That violation of the Constitution is harmless and dismisses the suit on those grounds?

Words fail me. Perhaps others can help me out here.