This is true, however I can show where it's not completely applicable. The goal that I'm suggesting is to show how you're being harmed in an individualized or particular way. For example: in suing your local elections officials, you want to show that you're being denied a fair hearing or show that unrestricted information is being withheld from the public (such as documentation to show how Obama was vetted). It's better to avoid asking the court to remove Obama from office or to invalidate the results of the election. I think this would happen on its own, through Congressional impeachment, once it's legally established that fraud has taken place.
My other suggestion is to tackle the standing doctrine head on. It was originally designed as a way to prevent people from asking courts to carte blanche declare pieces of legislation to be unconstitutional. The court said this wasn't their job; that they could only challenge a law if there was evidence of harm or injury. The only problem is that the courts also admitted that there are some areas of government that don't require the principle of standing. In Fairchild v. Hughes, the court said, "Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the [258 U.S. 126, 130] federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determination whether a statute, if passed, or a constitutional amendment, about to be adopted, will be valid." Under this ruling, Obama's eligibility is a general right entitled to EVERY citizen as it is clearly NOT based upon a statute nor constitutional amendment.
I’m looking at that quote and wondering how in the world these judges have a leg to stand on in any of their rulings. All ANY of the plaintiffs have wanted is to “require that the government be administered according to law”.
Just thinking of the hassles with Alan Keyes, for instance, where the court argued that he had no standing because “he couldn’t have won anyway”. He said he wanted his legal right to have a lawful contest. According to the quote you just gave, that is his right - whether he “can win” or not.
To have our military only be given lawful orders is the right of everybody in this country, according to that quote. Any person would have “standing”.
Every single case where standing has been denied - as if nobody is harmed if our government is lawless - goes against the decision in that case.
So what’s the date on that decision? Do you know if other cases have overruled that principle, or has it been cited in other cases as well? Where are they getting this “standing” crap?
My big thing in all this research has been how vulnerable our entire systems of government, media, and law enforcement are right now. Regardless of what happens with Obama, I will not feel that I’ve accomplished much of lasting value if the nation doesn’t address the vulnerabilities that got us here. And this issue of “standing” is a huge, huge problem.
If the judges have been threatened and so they’re totally screwing up the “standing” issue, then we need to figure out what recourse we, the people have if the judges decide to screw things up.
If what the judges are giving is a correct understanding of “standing” then we need to do something to re-establish the First Amendment right of the people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” - a right which the courts shouldn’t be able to abridge any more than they can abridge the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to peacably assemble.
It’s our foundations like these that really need to be rebuilt.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of case law. That isn’t my strong suit and I’m thankful for any heads-up I can get.