posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:23 PM
I've been going around and around with Whatyouknow in regard to the issue of "legal standing", in this thread.
It's my assertation that the cases filed in regard to President Obama's place of birth were NOT heard, but dismissed due to not having "standing"
to file them.
I also believe that the only body that the courts do recognize as having legal standing is Congress, and the SCOTUS. Obviously, both are supportive of
the President and are not going to file suit themselves.
Let's examine more precisely what "standing" means. It does NOT mean, as some have inferred, a lack of evidence.
Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can
show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the
general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising
under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial
restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.
Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing.
The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered
some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party
responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
The person must have a personal stake
in the outcome of the controversy.
Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not
So, it's a matter of the courts interpreting standing as an inability of those filing suit to demonstrate damages.
Now, how can any suit against a sitting President be brought to court? It apparently can't happen, even though it seems clear that IF
President wasn't a naturally-born citizen, that the PEOPLE have been damaged.
For the People by the People............ unless you have the iron to quash it. If the People, the rightful and legal citizens cannot challenge the
State, then that is NOT Due Process. That is a Presidential coup. Thus, the POTUS will always be able to keep hidden his long form.
[edit on 15/7/09 by argentus]