| Orly better start quoting Stevens on standing instead of Roberts and Scalia then. Let me help... The concept of "Standing" is relatively modern.
The majority of legal scholars who have studied the issue have concluded that the Framers of the Constitution never intended that Standing — a term absent from the Constitution — to serve as an independent test for identifying who can properly bring a legal claim in federal court. Instead, the Framers believed that Congress should have broad power to enact legislation granting citizens the right to sue.
While Justice Scalia may be viewed as succeeding in transforming the Court's “Standing” jurisprudence, it remains uncertain whether a majority of the High Court fully embraces his restrictive theory of "citizen standing".
You’d be foolish to think that prior Motions to Dismiss other Eligibility cases DEFINE Scalia’s and the SCOTUS’ stance on this "citizen standing" and Separations of Powers. It’s really less about Article III, Section 2 – and more about Politics.
Why do I say this? Do you remember Gore v Bush?? Well … LOL, of course you do ;)
I think it’s pretty clear that the SCOTUS really does not want to get involved in the middle a political issue again … BUT … it WOULD, if there was NO OTHER WAY to resolve the controversy.
Judge Carter seems to agree, even though Obama’s Justice Department espouses that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide such heady issues.
REALLY?! Does Congress seem even remotely-CAPABLE or UNBIASED enough to handle such a “controversy”?!! Of course not! That’s why Article III, Section 2 DOES exist. The SCOTUS has clearly established a standing requirement and has grounded this requirement in the Constitution, which grants the judiciary the power to hear "cases" and "controversies."
So yeah – resolve this by redefining the Standing issue – and throw it in front of Justices who serve for LIFE, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The SCOTUS is about the only entity deemed by most to be neutral enough to tackle such a controversial issue. BUT again – before the SCOTUS takes it on, the case has to come up through the court system or else the SCOTUS would seem to be too eager or biased in taking on the issue. This would ALSO revise aspects of Marbury v. Madison (1803) to some extent. In regards to Standing, particularly "citizen standing,” I contend that Justice Sotormayor may agree with the concept that the Individual is more important than the collective – as would other Justices – especially if the argument is framed in a different light. Justice Ginsburg has said, "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," evoking the Declaration of Independence. Sotormayor hinted that mindset, too, last month on her first day on the High Court.
Is the USA a Corporation? There are valid arguments that it is – which BTW, could also be exploited to pound the Quo Warranto concept into the dirt on this case. But honestly, I prefer the questions that Orly inferred: How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him? Does Quo Warranto apply if a president is indeed illegitimate in the first place? Despite what some view as being irrefutable favoring the POTUS via Quo Warranto, Judge Carter takes pause at these questions – as rightly he should.
BUT, back to the subject of Standing …
Who has more power in the Constitution – a Corporation or the Individual? Reference the Constitution and you’ll find the Bill of Rights is VASTLY in favor of the INDIVIDUAL, not a Corporation or the “collective”. That concept wasn’t really FIRST challenged until 1886. I think that Sotormayor and the other Justices might view Individual rights, as well as the rights of the taxpayer, beyond current High Court and lower court interpretations of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) seem to indicate. In Lujan, it was ruled that plaintiffs must “have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ in the form of the ‘invasion of a legally protected interest,’ that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ”
If you agree with that stance, you’re a Globalist and beyond help. If you don’t – you’re a Conservative – whether you wish to be labeled as such or not!
Similarly Judge Carter hints that concept is balderdash, when on Oct 5th he inferred (my words here):
WHO protects the rights of a Third Party (regardless of size — Perot or Keyes), in a Two-Party Legislature, and a One-Party Executive Branch?
Further, Gary Kreep argued that Congress lacks the political neutrality to make such a decision. Judge Carter seemed to concur. , but again … the framing of an argument in front of a Justice can change the outcome of case law.
To that end … does Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487 (1923) and Marbury v. Madison (1803) deserve some tweaking? Yeah, I think they do!
If you gave a damn about your own personal rights and freedoms, so would you. Just look at the more-draconian aspects of The Patriot Act and other modern legislation restrict individual liberties to get a taste of what I’m talking about.
"WE THE PEOPLE" is NOT about a Collective — but defines that we are a group of Individuals who each have Rights. Those Rights are Providentially-granted AND can be breached and violated by their Government.
The SCOTUS' current stance on "Standing," especially in the Eligibility cases, is a glaring example of this. And thus is a reason — among the more-obvious of Obama's eligibility — that this case must be appealed. |