Free citizens would be deprived of their right to have such elections duly held ...And
Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law ...Because these are basic rights of every citizen, then there's no inherent need to have legal standing to challenge an election that was not administered in according to law, as in not conforming with the eligibility requirement in the Constitution.
Another failing in these legal cases is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar states' rules of evidence (such as in Hawaii), that a vital record is considered to be hearsay and generally inadmissable unless the adverse party is given the opportunity to inspect a certified copy of such a record:
A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of that intention to all adverse parties, and shall make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them.
Arguably, anyone denied the right to inspect a certified, hard copy of Obama's alleged birth certificate in any of these cases is being denied a statutory right, and thus would have legal standing to insist on seeking redress of this particular grievance.
Exactly.
To the best of my knowledge no one ever made the argument that you are making and Hawaii law allows a confidential birth record to be released for inspection under court order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.
You're mixing up two separate concepts. Many states have procedures whereby any voter can challenge a candidate's eligibility for office. Numerous election contests were filed against Obama this year; at least two of them (Indiana and Georgia) went to full trials. Every state in which a challenge was properly filed ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen.
Standing in federal court follows different rules. Since at least the 1920s, the Supreme Court has said that if everyone has standing, then no one does-- meaning that if an issue affects every citizen equally, then it is something to be decided at the ballot box, not in court.