3January 20, 2009.Mr. Essek is not the first plaintiff to challenge President-Elect Obama’s qualifications infederal district court. Plaintiffs raised similar arguments in
Berg v. Obama
, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509(E.D. Pa. 2008),
Cohen v. Obama
, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), and
Stamper v.United States
, 2008 WL 4838073 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008). All three plaintiffs have beenunsuccessful. In
, the court dismissed a claim brought under the Natural Born CitizenClause on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the suit.
574F. Supp. 2d at 519. Similarly, the courts in
dismissed citing a lack of jurisdiction.
, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1;
, 2008 WL 4838073, at *3-*4. Inreaching the same conclusion, this Court need not repeat the extensive findings set forth by theseother courts in recent weeks and months.As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that subject matter jurisdiction is necessary for the exercise of federal judicial power.
Richmond v. International Business Machines Corp.
, 919F. Supp. 107 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). Either the court,
, or a party may assert the lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the course of an action.
Franzel v Kerr Mfg. Co.
,959 F.2d 628, 630 (6 Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), a court
must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.Article III of the Constitution limits the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to“cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const., Art. III, Sect. 2, cl. 1.
See also Hollander v. McCain
,566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 67 (D.N.H. 2008) (
citing Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.
, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982)).
As part of this requirement, a plaintiff must have standing.
, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 516 (
citing Sprint Communications. Co. v.