The case cited could resolve the standing issue when brought in this federal jurisdiction based on both state (eligibility determination) and federal (Article II Qualifications Clause)grounds; or in the state court of TX. (Remember, the laws in TX already require only eligible candidates can get their names printed on the ballot; and give the political party the right to determine a candidate’s eligibility for office.)
The case cited could resolve the standing issue when brought in this federal jurisdiction based on both state (eligibility determination) and federal (Article II Qualifications Clause)grounds; or in the state court of TX. (Remember, the laws in TX already require only eligible candidates can get their names printed on the ballot; and give the political party the right to determine a candidate’s eligibility for office.)
There are three requirements for article III standing:
(1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
(2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and
(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.
Thus far 54 Obama eligibility suits have been disnussed in state and federal courts across the nation, almost always the grounds for dismissal has been lack of standing meaning hte wrong persons bringing suit, persons who cannot demonstrate “injury in fatt”. McCain-Palin campaign could demonstrate injury in fact but they haven’t sued.