I think you may have forgotten or did not know that the Voeltz v. Obama lawsuits are ballot challenges. The only standing issues in ballot challenges are where state law requires being a member of a particular political party in order to challenge a primary election candidate. In Florida, Mr. Voeltz had standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility but all three challenges were dismissed due to rulings that Obama was indeed eligible.
If you can find any reference to standing in any of the orders issued by the lower courts, please post it. And I’m sure you know that an appellate court like a state Supreme Court only deals with issues of law raised by the case that is on appeal. So no standing issue exists.
The original jurisdiction lawsuit was adjudicated (not dismissed for lack of standing) in Leon County Circuit Court. It was then adjudicated for reconsideration by a different judge. It was then re-filed as a different lawsuit and adjudicated by a third judge.
This latest appeal was an attempt to get the Florida Supreme Court to compel the lower court to reconsider the original lawsuit.
In the three previous attempts, the judges ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.
Voeltz v. Obama (Original Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Voeltz v Obama (Reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Voeltz v. Obama (3rd attempt): Judge Kevin J. Carroll, Leon County Circuit Judge—”This Court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses, and meets with Congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world. President Obama’s recent appointment of the Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again. As this matter has come before the Court at this time of year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Harry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film “Miracle On 34th Street.” Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.”
December 21, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/117659188
I didn't forget anything. I responded to what the denial said verbatim and I gave an explicit definition that backed up my point. Now you're trying to baffle you're way out of an obviously losing argument with a bunch of irrelevant commentary and quotations. This is a typical fogger tactic, but no one is falling for it.