Now you seem to agree that this will have to be challenged in the courts, which is my position. Obama is in the WH. McCain was on the ballot. If the definition of "natural born citizen" is so accepted and well defined by every legitimate legal authority and constitutional scholar (Tribe and Olson excepted), then why did this happen? Both political parties accepted the results.
What is really needed is a public law/declaration of what standing is and the individuals right to have such. I understand some states are looking at that issue and the sooner courts are told what individual standing means the sooner there will be meaning to the expression ‘We the People’.
Standing to do what? And would such a law be constitutional?
You are reading me wrongly. The SC does not have to and I contend cannot rule on whether or not there is a difference between ‘natural born citizen’ and plain ‘citizen’ because that such a difference exists is/was embedded in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers as to eligibility for POTUSA and for Congresspersons to be different. If you do not acknowledge that this differentiation exists in the Constitution we certainly are not in agreement. I make the point again another way that because both ‘parties’ accepted the results of an ineffective resolution only means that the ‘parties’ were in cahoots to bamboozle the public for their own purposes. There will probably be the opportunity to find out if individual standing is possible under the Constitution when a State or States make a law that recognizes such in challenging the certification for eligibility of a nominee for POTUSA.