What makes your argument even stronger is the fact that early drafts of the Constitution provided, “We the States…” That language was expressly altered to emphasize that it was each and every citizen who was the power behind the Constitution.
“We the States…” means just that- the ENTITIES of the States.
'to emphasize that it was each and every citizen who was the power behind the Constitution' is true, but the power BEHIND the Constitution is not the same as a party to the compact.
-----
The Federalist No. 45
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Fortunately, I think we are all on the same page with regard to O’s eligibiltiy.
Your reference to Madison’s #45 is accurate. #45 was written in an attempt to overcome objections that the government contemplated in the constitution would impinge on state rights.
We are talking here about standing to sue. The truth of the matter is no governmental structure has authority except as provided by the people (at least in the U.S. and at least for the time being). The most efficient means of documenting the consent of the people to the Constitution was through the signatures of their state representatives.
It is clear two or more parties may contract for the benefit of third persons. It is also clear those third persons generally have standing to sue.
I believe, without having read the court decisions, that the standing issue for ordinary citizens had not ripened. At the moment, the time for contesting the state primary nominations has certainly expired (the Republicans slept through the moment). The time for objecting to O’s candidacy does not occur until after the electors vote and the entire Congress considers the vote on Jan 8, ’09. If our political representatives fail to take action on Jan 9, I predict the people will have standing. However, I am not a trial attorney.
Happy thanksgiving all!