[SeaHawkFan]

Would it be fair to say that no one has standing until Obama actually “wins” the election? If so, would this be because no one has been potentially damaged until that time?

[Pearls Before Swine]

Would it be fair to say that no one has standing until Obama actually “wins” the election? If so, would this be because no one has been potentially damaged until that time?

The Surrick court said there's no damage until he's elected. Potential damage is a different matter--but it would take a court with brass stones to issue an injunction (i.e., stop running until you produce proof of citizenship)on this matter.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, it would not be fair to say that. The problem is that everyone who has sought to raise the issue up to now, has butchered the job. It's like watching roofers who deal with shingles and nails do brain surgery, and patient after patient winds up dying.

John / Billybob

[Political Junkie Too]

Would it be fair to say that no one has standing until Obama actually “wins” the election? If so, would this be because no one has been potentially damaged until that time?

Wouldn't you think that anybody who succumbed to the appeal by Obama for cash donations is already damaged but doesn't know it yet because Obama is hiding behind procedure to avoid exposing that he's not eligible for the office?

Isn't it fraud to present yourself to someone as something that you're not in order to accept cash? Even if Obama loses, he's still defrauded his donors based on false information. He doesn't have to win in order to be compelled to prove that he's eligible for the office, if he illegally scammed people out of the donations in the first place, by running for an office that he's Constitutionally not allowed to hold.

-PJ