There is a controversy here for which the SCOTUS has previously given a definition of natural born citizen. The court has also acted before in regard to the seating of elected representatives. The power to act appears to be present.
And SCOTUS has defined “cases and controversies” to include the requirement that the party bringing the suit have standing.
Yes, there's no question that standing is at issue. What I noted previously is that the recent decision in this appeal undermined its own rationale on standing by admitting the plaintiffs had what it called a "unique ability" to sue. As such, that should have given Kerchner standing.
Also, by the way, if “Obama has most likely committed criminal fraud,” why are civil suits being brought anyway?
Oh, I agree to a point that it would more sense to charge Obama with criminal fraud, but IIUC, the only body that can do this is Congress. The partisan nature of our Congress currently prevents this from happening, no??
It’s like bringing suit against someone because you saw him rob a post office.
Not really. Maybe you remember OJ Simpson was sued for wrongful death despite being acquitted of murder charges?? But if you want to use the post office analogy, the person you saw robbing the post office may have stolen your mail, including checks and other property. You certainly would have standing to sue the robber.
“Oh, I agree to a point that it would more sense to charge Obama with criminal fraud, but IIUC, the only body that can do this is Congress.”
Nope, that’s not true. Only Congress can impeach; but any prosecutor in a jurisdiction in which Obama committed crimes before taking office can bring charges. For example, if he used a purported Hawaiian document fraudulently, that is a crime in Hawaii and probably a federal crime as well. There are plenty of prosecutors, both state and federal, who are opposed to Obama politically; all it takes is one to bring criminal charges, if they believe they have sufficient evidence.
“Maybe you remember OJ Simpson was sued for wrongful death despite being acquitted of murder charges?”
Sorry, that one doesn’t work. First of all, those charges were brought in state court, which are not Article III courts and are subject to different rules. Second, those who brought suit against Simpson clearly had individualized grievances that did not apply to the population at large.
“the person you saw robbing the post office may have stolen your mail, including checks and other property. You certainly would have standing to sue the robber.”
No, not at all — you would lack standing just like the birther plaintiffs. “[M]ay have stolen your mail...” is not good enough. The Lujan precedent states very clearly that the injury must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” If you have evidence that that individual stole from you, that’s a different matter; but the hypothetical I raised simply specified that you had witnessed the crime, and that is not sufficient to confer standing.