Is “legal standing” defined somewhere in law?
The banana republic junta has standing. No one else has.
I'm of the opinion that the only ones who can possibly force the president to release his vault copy of his birth certificate is Congress, as part of impeachment proceedings. Once he was sworn in, options dwindled to Pelosi land.
Legal standing is more a doctrine than a specifically defined law somewhere. Standing means the law recognizes you have the legal right to come into court to litigate certain issues. The issue is whether this person has a right to take the action he has taken, given his professed reason for taking the action or refusing to take a particular action. (Weasley enough for you yet?)
Distill the matter into a broad principle: Does a member of the armed forces have the right to refuse a lawfully given order (and deployment is a lawfully given order) based on his personal belief the Commander-in-Chief is not lawfully occupying that office? Does the law give this soldier the right to force the CIC to produce proof of his citizenship before he is required to obey the deployment orders?
If you think this doctor is right, think for a moment of all those people who believed President Bush was illegally put in office by the Supreme Court. Should they have been able to refuse deployment orders and drag the administration into court everywhere and everyday?
The problem this soldier has is the Supreme Court has sworn this CIC in, giving him the authority to make lawful orders pursuant to his authority as CIC. You may be better off challenging the authority of the Supreme Court to swear in Obama in the first place. I am in sympathy with the good doctor and don’t doubt his sincerity and patriotism, but I don’t think he has the right to do what he’s trying to do here.
‘Is “legal standing” defined somewhere in law?’
Right. That little phrase has been used repeatedly to swat away any legal challenges to bammy’s NBC qualifications.
You silly people (they seem to say), you can’t expect to have an accountable executive when he’s the white guilt/black messiah! He is what you so vociferously asked for at the end of the Bush era. So shut up, and suck it up private!
As I understand it “standing” means that you have been injured and you have proof an illegality was committed against you. Proof does not equal mere suspicion.
It is, but it's irrelevant in Lakin's case. Standing is the legal ability to sue in civil court. Lakin has been charged with the military equivalent of a felony. He will have his day in court, as the defendant and not the plaintiff. And he will have access to all the evidence necessary to show how he didn't miss movement and why his brigade commander's orders were illegal.
What is he Hiding and Why?
I hope some day we find out. . .