“Establishing such facts is what trials, discovery, etc are about.”
But you need to be able to plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the law. Merely saying Obama is a Kenyan, or a “usurper” isn’t going to work. There has to be something substantial, something real for the trial to be about.
“If J.Q. Citizen no longer has standing to sue to enforce the Constitution, the Constitution is a dead letter and it is time for the final box.”
J.Q. Public, per se, outside of actions based in the individual rights arising under the Bill of Rights which this wouldn’t be, has NEVER had standing to sue to enforce the constitution unless he has a particularized injury. Its no more a dead letter today than it was 100 years ago. But where did you get the idea that J.Q. Public has or ever had a general right to sue to enforce provisions of the constitution? There is a lot of nonsense parading around as constitutional law surrounding this issue which ought to stop.
“If there would be a full legal, adversarial examination of the issue, with the full appeals process played out on the issue of his father’s lack of citizenship, and Obama were found to be fully eligible, then so be it, and we continue to fight his agenda.”
I take it the election process, with the primaries and the general election didn’t suffice? That’s where issues like this one belong; perhaps before the ratification of the election, in Congress. If its a real issue, someone will run with it in 2012, perhaps even some House or Senate candidate in 2010. In the latter cases, it might even mean the margin of victory; in the former, its a guarantee of defeat.
His father was not a US citizen, at the time of his birth, or ever. That's enough. The BC thing would just be "easier" in that no modern interpretation of the Constitution need be debunked.
I take it the election process, with the primaries and the general election didn’t suffice?
No it didn't. The election cannot magically cure a Constitutional deficiency. Ask the people of California about that. They vote in State constitutional amendments, and the federal courts strike 'em down.
While the Bill of Rights, and certain other provisions of the Constitution are about individual rights, most of it is not. It's about the structure of and limitations on government. Mostly federal but some of the limitations are on the state governments as well.
Art. III Section II.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You see, we are allowed to actually read the Constitution, we don't have to settle for what others tell us it says. It was written to be understood by common, only moderately literate, people. We need no High Priests to tell us it's meaning.
J.Q. Public, per se, outside of actions based in the individual rights arising under the Bill of Rights which this wouldn’t be, has NEVER had standing to sue to enforce the constitution unless he has a particularized injury.
Oh yea? here's an example where the injury of the plaintiffs was "general" and not specific to them, and the case involved a Constitutional provision that is not an "individual" right, the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. FLAST v. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The Government moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that appellants lacked standing to maintain the action....For reasons explained at length below, we hold that appellants do have standing as federal taxpayers to maintain this action, and the judgment below must be reversed....
So maybe we should challenge BO's power to spend any taxpayer money on the ground that he is not eligible to exercise that power of the Presidency?