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.
I found this case at wikipedia's entry on legal standing, and then went and read the decision. It was identified as the case where the general concept of standing was introduced in 1922. In 1923, in Frothingham V. Mellon & Massachusetts V. Mellon, the court came up with its judical test for standing.
In the cases about Obama's eligiblity, standing is the argument presented by Obama's defense team (and was also used by McCain), which as we see now, only applies if you're challenging a specific statute or constitutional amendment. However, unless the plaintiff's are aware of this, the court isn't going to volunteer that bit of information, as this provides a convenient 'out' to avoid hearing such a case. Whether the part I quoted has been cited or overruled, I can't say. I have a feeling that it has not. The defense team and the court are basically taking advantage of the plaintiff's ignorance of the law. It's much like the way the HI DOH never told anyone that they could publish index data or provide abbreviated birth certificate. They'll just hope you don't know the facts and accept their dodge.