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?
“His father was not a US citizen, at the time of his birth, or ever. That’s enough.”
Why? Has any court said this, EG?
“The election cannot magically cure a Constitutional deficiency.”
No it can’t cure any pre-existing one. But it surely could have highlighted a deficiency in Obama’s qualifications if one exists. But it didn’t, did it, EG? Probably because there is no rational basis for the claim that Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualified.
“You see, we are allowed to actually read the Constitution, we don’t have to settle for what others tell us it says.”
What is it in Art. III, Sec 2 that gives you the right to force Obama to prove, through court, that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President?
“It was written to be understood by common, only moderately literate, people.”
Oh?
“We need no High Priests to tell us it’s meaning.”
The Founders didn’t trust “the People” at all. That’s why we have High Priests; they are called Judges.
“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)”
Uh, EG, Flast was a 1st Amendment case, an “Estabishment Clause” case. The First Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Please read the case again. Then read Justice Alito’s much more recent opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion, Inc.; here’s a link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-157.pdf
“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?”
Go ahead; you’ll lose. Read Hein again.