An opposing candidate makes the strongest case for granting standing in an election eligibility lawsuit. The first thing a judge is going to think is “where’s the guy or gal that lost?”
What crime did you allege that Barack Obama committed in your state that is a violation of your state’s laws? It is always best to file a criminal complaint in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. There should be criminal complaints filed in every state of the union plus the District of Columbia. That might shake loose a grand jury investigation (which was the way Whitewater started under Clinton) or even a congressional investigation in the House. My hope was always that Sheriff Arpaio would turn over the Cold Case Posse evidence to the Maricopa County Attorney but that has not happened in time to stop Obama’s coronation.
Hundreds, thousands, even millions of co-plaintiffs can join any civil suit in a class action but the strongest case will always be with a lead plaintiff who can show direct and particularized harm. Would you grant standing to a pharmaceutical damage suit that had no plaintiff who had suffered direct injury from the side effects of the drug?
In one of the earliest eligibility lawsuits, US District Court Judge Carter contemplated granting standing to Allan Keyes, candidate of the American Independent Party but Judge Carter ultimately didn’t because Keyes was only on the ballot in four or five states and had no chance to be harmed by being denied a serious opportunity to be elected.
The first 2008 presidential eligibility lawsuit to be dismissed for lack of standing was Hollister v McCain and the Republican National Committee. That suit was filed at the time of the 2008 New Hampshire Primary. It challenged McCain’s eligibility due to his birth outside the US. McCain’s and the RNC’s attorneys got the lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing by Fred Hollister. If Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul or one of the other Republican primary candidates had been a plaintiff along with Mr, Hollister, the lawsuit might have had a much better chance of being heard in full court.
If 40 people had received electoral votes, then that number would have the strongest case to be granted standing. However after the first twenty or so Obama and Mc Cain eligibility lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, and both liberal and conservative judges were granting those dismissals, it would have been a good idea to try to enlist one of the major party candidates as a lead plaintiff to make the strongest possible case for being granted standing. You are correct that any judge can grant standing if they are so inclined. The reality is that only a few have, except for in the state ballot challenges where most states’ laws allow any registered voter to file a challenge. There were 50 of those lawsuits in 2012 and none were dismissed on standing grounds.
The Constitution is very precise: (12th Amendment), whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” There is a constitutional check on the electors, the votes of the electors can be challenged in Congress by any one Representative and any one Senator, but in Obama’s case, there were no challenges from any member of Congress in 2008 or in 2012.
All the thugs have to do is threaten the one other person who gets electoral votes, and America is dead.
Wow.
You will never convince me that the Founders intended this nation’s Constitution to be that fragile.
You seem to have missed what I said about Roe v Wade. Roe didn’t have standing. The decision was made based on all the women would MIGHT be harmed if a decision was not made. Roe wasn’t the person at issue in SCOTUS’ decision; she had already had her baby. She was a representative for all the potential people who could be “harmed”.
All the stuff about standing is just an excuse. Even in the cases where standing was guaranteed, the judges dismissed the case - for instance, Klayman’s case down in FL.
My country is dead. I’m a patriot without a country.