Replies

The cases you cite include the following:

lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives
award of state franchise tax
state statute denying counsel
lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act
lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language
lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions
lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization
standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents
lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures

None of them are about anything directly mentioned in the Constitution, and that is why the Citizens Rights Standing was denied. Some of them are about Taxpayer Standing, something not relevent here.

I say again that any act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constituion is actionable, as of right, by any US Citizen.

I say again that any act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constituion is actionable, as of right, by any US Citizen.

I'm not an attorney but I've often thought if the standing issue, in Constitutional matters, was presented as Obama vs We the People, i.e. the whole damn population of the US - Whoa! - would all 300+million of us "in the courtroom" have standing? . or not. isn't that all were asking? - to have SCOTUS once and for all define what a Natural Born Citizen is? - and if Obama is one? Does the Constitution still matter? If it doesn't and if We the People don't have standing, then maybe it's time to water the tree of Liberty again. . .

The cases I cite include the following:

lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives... on the grounds that such initiatives violated the Constitutional/First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.);

lacked standing to challenge an award of state franchise tax...on the grounds that the award violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno);

lacked standing to challenge state statute denying counsel...on the grounds that the statute violated the Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection set forth in the 5th and/or 14th Amendments (Kowalski v. Tesmer); .

lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act...on the ground that the Act violated Article I of the Constitution (Raines v. Byrd);

lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language... on the ground that the state law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution (Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona);

lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions... on the grounds that the tax exemption granted to discriminatory schools violated the Constitutional equal protection rights provided by the 14th Amendment(Allen v. Wright);

lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization... on the grounds that such initiatives violated the Constitutional/First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion (Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State);

had standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents...on the grounds that the law violated the Constitutional Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. )

lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures on the grounds that the expenditures violated Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, of the Constitution. (U. S. v. Richardson,).

In each of these cases (and the rest originally cited), the litigants based their challenge on requirements stated in the Constitution.

As for "some of them are about Taxpayer Standing, something not relevant here", Dr. Taitz disagrees with you and specifically cited Flast v. Cohen, the seminal taxpayer standing case to support their argument asking the Court to expand that ruling to apply to this situation.

Again, in every case that the Court has considered the issue, it has held that a person must have standing to challenge an "act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constitution. But if you have a single Supreme Court case to support your contention to the contrary, I'd be very interested in reading it.