[Cheerio]

From all I have read on this subject, it would appear that NO ONE in America has any standing to question if their political candidates are “Elegible” or not.

[Kansas58]

This will be an issue in 2012, when several states, through their own, enacted laws, require more documentation.

They WILL have standing.

[coloradan]

Sounds like an “everyone has standing” argument, not a “no standing” argument.

[SpaceBar]

How dare we question the credentials of Chairman Zero.

[Iron Munro]

Save millions in legal fees - just show the Kenyan birth certificate!

[freedumb2003]

Problem solved:

[traditional1]

I think I’ll not pay income tax, as I have “no Standing”, since it affects all people, too.....

[ZOOKER]

...any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to complain.

So if a terrorist concocts a virus and spreads it throughout the US, no one could sue because all would be equally at risk (injured)?

I know legal arguments sometimes defy logic, but this one...

[circumbendibus]

...the government's statement will be answered by the scheduled deadline of March 22.

My calendar is marked. See tagline.

[votemout]

The courts have been wrong so far. We have the right to an honest election. The secretaries of state, congress, and the electoral college did not perform their ministerial duties. We have standing to know about the candidates, especially the one who was elected.

[PubliusMM]

It would seem to me that any one on the left who agrees with the direction the anointed one is pushing the country would be proof that anyone on opposition should have standing from the ‘injury’ perspective. Clearly, someone who encourages the further spread of this vermin’s socialist pogroms would NOT consider themselves ‘injured’ by the changes they seek. That would be sufficient to lay to waste the argument that an injury to one is an injury to all...

Of course, then there is legitimate logic that would tend to support the notion that anyone who voted in the election, or anyone who ran for the office of President, should have standing, as an active participant in the process.

It’s still time to take back the country.

[Spartan79]

The attorneys argued in a brief submitted to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to complain.

If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass.

[chicken head]

there is only one way to get him to release records— (read section 3.)

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[El Gato]

The attorneys argued in a brief submitted to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to complain.

I guess the founders screwed up and left out the Judiciary when the they tried to protect the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Course there was something, even before the 1st amendment was written about The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

But the judiciary has, by use of "precedent" piled on "precedent" converted "all" to "some".

[TexasVoter]

No legislative body thus far has seen fit to establish any process or assign any responsibilities to any gov't office to enforce Art. II Sect. 1 of the Constitution.

Under the 10th Amendment don't the people reserve the power to enforce those provisions?

I need whole drawer full of these:

[Uncle Chip]

I would like someone out there to explain how someone can get standing to sue in Federal Court to have a cross removed from a lone hill in the Mojave Desert according to these rules. These alleged rules of standing are bent and twisted and broken all the time.

[Uncle Chip]

The attorneys argued in a brief submitted to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that any injury to someone whose president is not eligible is the same injury for all people, so the individual has no legal standing to complain.

The same can be said for someone who embezzles funds from the governmment of all the people. So the individual has no legal standing to complain about that either????

[Dajjal]

The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.

Correction: they excluded people born as dual citizens, even if they renounced one later.