Replies

Please do tell, give the specifics of ANY case that actually entered a court room. Give me an example of 1 case that had a fair hearing on the merits of the case in an open court room? Dismissal for lack of standing does not equal no merit to the foundation of the case. Congress has the authority to naturalize aliens/immigrants and say which aliens/immigrants may be citizens, which includes the immigrants children. Any child who acquires their citizenship because of an act of Congress acquires it through a form of naturalization. PERIOD! Natural born(born to 2 citizen parents) need no act of congress or law because at birth they owe allegiance to one & only one nation. The nation of their birth.
Again, might I suggest you open a book prior to 1800 where it defines the definition of subject, born on soil regardless of parentage & citizen, born to citizen parents.

I challenge you to find me 1 book that defines the 2 as the same. And I do not want opinions in law, I want actual law dictionaries or scholastic dictionaries because even Webster’s 1825 dictionary defines them as 2 different things. One being under the rule of a master & the other a free & sovereign member of society. Free members consent to participation, subjects have no say or right to participation unless it is granted to them by the rulers.

I won’t hold my breath for you to actually take the challenge as you have already shown your ignorance of history & the law. But one can still hope for the oppressed & ignorant to finally see the light & become informed & free.

This was a trick question, right? When a legal position gets summarily dismissed over and over and over and over again (more than 50 times) for lack of standing, that means IT HAS NO MERIT.
You are not going to find a trial on the merits if lawsuits have no merit. If a lawsuit has merit then plaintiffs are presented who have standing to sue.

Let me give you an example: let’s say you run a red light and hit another car. The accident is clearly your fault.
A spectator to the accident who is standing on a street corner tries to sue you for having had an accident that he/she had the misfortune to witness.

Judge after judge after judge is going to dismiss the suit against you by the bystander on lack of standing.

A bystander has no right to sue you because the bystander suffered no injury in fact as a result of your actions.
THERE WILL NEVER BE A TRIAL “ON THE MERITS” when there is no standing to sue. It is the responsibility of the attorneys who are pursuing a particular issue to present a plaintiff who will be granted standing.

If you’re going to sue BP for the oil spill, better have plaintiffs who suffered direct injuries from the oil spill.

There is probably only one potential plaintiff who could have sued Obama for getting elected when he was (allegedly) ineligible, that plaintiff would have been Senator John Sidney McCain, the only person to suffer an injury-in-fact DIRECTLY, NOT INDIRECTLY, from the election of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Plaintiffs who suffered no injury-in-fact from Obama’s election have their lawsuits summarily dismissed for lack of standing because those are frivolous lawsuits filed by attorneys who should know better if they ever stepped inside a REAL law school.