Boy, if I keep on doing this kind of stuff I am going to be able to work as a para-legal or something. OK, I read the stuff and googled some stuff, and NO The Case Was NOT Dismissed On Standing Stuff!!!
It was dismissed because there was NO LEGAL BASIS for all the stuff the Vattle Birthers were saying!!! That is because all the law the Vattle Birthers tried to use was just, in Mark Levin’s words, “Vattle Birther Crap.”
A “Failure to State a Claim is A 12B6 thingy which is this: “Within a judicial forum, the failure to present sufficient facts which, if taken as true, would indicate that any violation of law occurred or that the claimant is entitled to a legal remedy.”
Which means when the court said:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
The Vattle Birthers were all wrong in their legal theories.
So, nooo, “standing whatever” is not mentioned there as why they threw it out. Which means, they must have read the law and decided the Vattle Birthers didn’t know what they were talking about. *Which I can certainly understand!!!). Which means if the Vattle Birthers file some more “ Vattle Birther crap” they are going to lose some more.
“The claimant is not entitled to a legal remedy” is a denial of standing. That IS the ruling, period.