[azishot]

...where is the ruling that there is standing for this?

I'd like to know, too.

[Elderberry]

I didn’t find a ruling on that case, but I found that the Ninth Circuit ruled against Keyes Barnett vs Obama.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76326540/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-9th-CIRCUIT-AFFIRMED-FILED-OPINION

[danamco]

From LLF:

Our motion is as simple as a motion can be. It asserts one uncontested fact and one legal definition, which is quoted directly from the Supreme Court. Our only argument for this motion is this: Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” to be a person with two U.S. citizen-parents. This leaves the Democratic party only two options: Argue that Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen, or argue that the Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen isn’t what it clearly is. They will NOT argue the former. They will argue the latter. This means that we will be exactly where we want to be: arguing what the definition of natural-born citizen is under the U.S. Constitution. This is the argument we want to have.
Some may ask why we aren’t addressing the birth certificate or the social security number or the various other inconsistencies in Obama’s history and documentation. The reason is that confusion is the primary tool of legal defendants. If the defense can bring up a myriad of facts and legal jargon to confuse the issue, they win. If we raise every issue that is out there, the defendants will focus on our weakest argument and move the debate to their advantage. We want to control the argument and focus the Court to the major and most clear issue – the fact that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” by his own admission.