[Uncle Chip]

I do not know how you get standing or jurisdiction on the the Obama natural citizenship question. I think it (the idea of a President elected and inaugurated without being truly qualified) is an example of something so incomprehensible and unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution - that they did not address where the power to certify qualifications would rest in the organization of government. It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.

If that is indeed the case, then there is no reason not to grant standing in these cases. The court system is there to supplement those areas where there is a void in the law or where public officials have failed to enforce what is already there..

[Non-Sequitur]

Bump

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Not really. Look up the “political question” doctrine - it’s an entire realm of problems which the courts cede to the Congress. Courts could make decisions in those areas but they recognize that they would be invading the territory of another branch of government. So, under the notion of separation of powers, they don’t go there. It’s not as though they could grant standing to a plaintiff and then decide a “political question” brought by that plaintiff. In the situation with Obama - again it is a novel (and very strange) situation - but clearly removal of a President once in office is left to the Congress. But their Constitutional imprimatur is to remove on conviction of “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office only.