Can a class of people have standing where any one of them doesn’t individually?
For instance, “Jane Roe” had already had the baby by the time Roe v Wade was decided. But when SCOTUS took the case they took it for a class of people that didn’t even include Jane Roe by the time the case had gone that far. It was basically a class-action suit on behalf of anybody who WOULD have standing - and they justified it by saying that a person shouldn’t be denied rights simply because their “standing” would be gone by the time the judicial gears had gotten far enough to decide the case.
So they totally got around the issue of “standing” by saying they were deciding as a class action on behalf of theoretical people who WOULD be affected.
Can “we, the people” as a class have standing to demand our Constitution be followed, or bankruptcy laws, or Senate rules, or anything where the rule of law is being violated by the government?
You probably wouldn’t lose the standing argument if you had some evidence. That’s whats missing. I think the courts would bend stuff a little if there was some reason to do so.
The problem is, when they get into the birther stuff, there is just nothing to it. I know you don’t want to hear it, but that’s just the truth. Do you know how we look at the truthers? Or the people who don’t think we actually landed on the Moon?
Then they start off on the “evidence” they have and when you start going thru it, it just kind of evaporates. Yeah, flags do wave in a vacuum. Building do fall down when thier inner skeleton melts.
Well, the sad truth is, the “He wasn’t born in Hawaii” birthers don’t even have truther or no moon-landing level of evidence. Birthers can’t even get it out of the gate before it stumbles and falls.
The “Not an NBC” birthers have it a lot easier. Their arguments are all legal theory, so there is no way to really slap them down until the theory goes ooopsies! And even then, they can argue the Court was wrong. And most people don’t have a clue about cases versus treatises, precedents, etc. And most people who try to explain it are stuffy lawyer types who don’t know how to put things into American.
Look at what I’ve posted tonite. That Indiana case is real easy to read. Wong gets affirmed. The case isn’t binding on any other court but it gives a pretty good clue how the existing law is going to come down. YET, I am having to go uphill against this stupid Vattel and John Jay stuff that any court worth its salt will drop kick out of the courtroom in afew minutes.
Birthers just don’t want to believe what they don’t want to believe. Its human nature. Sometimes, some people will learn and change. Its makes it all worth while.
Here’s the case. You read it. Pages 13 to 18.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy
Just a note: Standing would only apply if you’re bringing a civil lawsuit. What we’re looking at with the fraudulent cert number is criminal fraud, which would be an impeachable offense. The state of Illinois would be the place to try to pursue this, since fictioncheck.org claims to have photographed the alleged COLB in Chicago. No standing is needed, but you would need to find the proper law enforcement officials or a prosecutor willing to tackle this case. Might be tough.