Only Plaintiffs who have had provable and tangible damages as a direct result of Obama’s actions would have standing.
Like the car dealers, for instance.
Or, maybe even the people who have lost jobs because of him.
Exactly! Injuries that are a direct result of Obama’s actions.
“An argument can be made that (the Supreme Court) avoiding the eligibility issue is a violation of one’s civil rights.”
“I’d have to disagree with that. Voting is a privilege. We have a choice for whom we vote.”
I don’t follow your logic. I did not choose to vote for the Supreme Court Justices.
On the standing issue. I can only see a fine line between the car dealers, those who lost jobs and an injured soldier. In the first example it was Obama’s policy and in the second example a soldier is injured as a direct result of Obama sending him to war.
The LTC Lakins case appears to be different because he disobeyed orders which caused a court martial. In that case the military does not have to address why he disobeyed orders, just that he did. (Remember the Mike News case with the blue beret thing.)
In the second case, a soldier obeys the order, goes to war and then is injured. He finds out later that there is evidence that President is not eligible to be President. He presents evidence showing that the President is not eligible and that a fraud has been committed. He has a clear case of an injury (literally) and avoids the court martial routine and protects his career. Maybe he is retired from the military at that point. The government cannot make the argument that the order was lawful without addressing the eligibility issue. The government has to show that no fraud had been committed. The soldier did not disobey orders. The military can’t do anything to him. He was injured because he followed Obama’s orders, that he now believes were unlawful due to a fraud that was committed.
Humor me and lets play this hypothetical out.