The article is wrong. Standing is used in ALL legal cases. You can’t go to court based on your being unhappy about something. Nor can you go to court if the only harm you have suffered has been suffered equally by all 300+ million citizens. You need to have suffered some specific harm, and you need to have something the court has authority to do to deal with that harm.
The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
Further, courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them.
And states HAVE followed their laws. In Arizona, I’ve written to support efforts to require candidates to document their birth place and age with actual birth certificates, but the law doesn’t require that. You can’t argue Obama violated the law of your state if your state allows a letter from the nominating party as adequate proof.
I strongly believe all candidates should be required to release birth certificates, tax records, school records, and work records - but that is NOT what the law of Arizona says.
Oh Really? In terms of the document presented as the copy of Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate on the official White House web site, tell us, what court has allowed discovery,had experts examine the evidence and ruled on its merits?
This is true in the case of small claims courts and similar civil actions. But, if it applied equally to ALL courts, how could a DA bring charges against a murder or robbery suspect, for example? The DA has NOT suffered any specific harm, the murder and robbery victims did. And, if it were true, how could a group of Congresscritters bring suit against the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act almost as soon as the ink was dry?
So, your contention that a plaintiff must have suffered some specific harm in order to have the standing to bring an action to court is incorrect in the case of criminal courts.
The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
While no court has, to the best of my knowledge, ever overturned a national election, courts HAVE overturned election results before. The precedent exists for them to do it if a legitimate basis can be proved. In this particular case, as I noted to you in my previous post, a case of deliberate fraud is suspected since the LFBC posted on whitehouse.gov has been proven to be a forgery.
Further, courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them.
To date, NO court has heard the merits of this case, the case has typically been dismissed on the basis of the plaintiff's lack of standing (in the Court's eyes) to bring the action.
This, then, brings us to the crux of this issue and why, IMO, no court has recognized an individual's standing to bring charges against the POTUS. The issue at hand is a Constitutional one that goes to the heart of the Constitution. While every court in which this issue has been filed has denied the standing of the plaintiff to bring the action, NO court has defined who DOES have standing to bring such an action. Therein is a deliberate misrepresentation of the court system by those who run it. The Founding Fathers made it clear that no one was above the law and that the court system existed to resolve disputes between opposing parties. IMO, this extends to ANY American citizen having the standing to bring any fundemental Constitutional issue to court to be resolved.
I believe that these case are being dismissed out of hand because they are political hot potatoes that the courts do not want to touch. As the arbitrator in the dispute, no matter how the court rules, they will be portrayed as the "bad guy" and subjected to intense public and political condemnation. And, NO one wants to be the "bad guy" because it, ultimately, undermines the credibility of the judicial system.