The real problem that we have is that the judiciary is claiming they don’t need to rule - that it’s nobody’s business and nobody is being harmed by us not having any answers.
The states can grant legal standing for people so that the courts HAVE to address an issue on the minds of the people, can’t they?
I wish I knew who all was a lawyer so I could ping them all and we could try to address the root of the problem, which is a system - including the judiciary - that says we the people have no standing to make any difference in anything. The whole system is set up for us to choose which lemming to send to the system and then that lemming becomes part of the system built to keep itself safe from we the people. When it comes to Congress’ criminality, the root of the problem is that we the people are not able to file criminal charges. That gives somebody like Eric Holder the ability to obstruct ALL law enforcement involving politicians.
That’s a root that we HAVE to address. On eligibility and a milion other issues, the system has to allow we the people to have buy-in, has to make the system accountable to we the people and NOT just to whoever we send to DC or our state bureaucracies.
Out of the Obama cases that were heard and opinions cut, a handful went beyond the needs of the case and opined as to the qualifications. I believe they all cited Wong Kim ark for the proposition that "born on US soil to persons legally resident" was sufficient.
I think there were similar excursions in the McCain case, but obviously using a different basis for finding him qualified.
-- The states can grant legal standing for people so that the courts HAVE to address an issue on the minds of the people, can't they? --
Only for state courts, and issues the feds choose to pick up (like Arizona passing a law that its state law enforcement must facilitate enforcement of federal immigration law).
-- When it comes to Congress' criminality, the root of the problem is that we the people are not able to file criminal charges. --
The founders foresaw the possibility of systematic failure, and wrote about it. They abhorred democracy, and with good reason.
-- On eligibility and a milion other issues, the system has to allow we the people to have buy-in, has to make the system accountable to we the people ... --
There will always be some fraction of the public that is disappointed. The people in power (and this is not just in the US) mollify the general public with "open and free elections" (there is your say so), open courts that publish their rationale and conclusions, and means to remove public officials who aren't doing their jobs.
IMO, it's possible for the most important parts of that to be a sham. Firearms decisions are a great example of duplicity and in-you-face lies by the courts. They don;t get called out on it, and not enough people are willing to take action (which could be passive, see Gandhi) to resist the tyrants.
There are lots of problems. Dishonest and power-hungry micro-managers in charge of public policy and substantial parts of personal lives; a public that values security more than freedom; a public that is ignorant of history, personally selfish, and barely capable of rational thought let alone critical thinking; a long-standing repetition of certain public works as inherently proper (democracy, the right to vote, public education); politicians who work at one thing - reelection - and studiously avoid accountability for what their legislative and executive bodies are tasked with; a press that actively promotes all forms of socialism and lies like a rug; the list goes on.
Work locally. At least you can have a positive impact on your family, your neighbors, your customers, your co-workers, and maybe even your local politicians (some of whom are apt to be just as much a skunk as the big boys). Ability to influence things on a national scale? Forget it. The national government should be an object of ridicule, scorn, and contempt. It's way beyond the wrongs that sparked the Declaration of Independence, but those days are forever gone. Population density is too high, stakes are too high, etc.
Anyway, most of the people pulling the levers of power will tell you (and most of them believe it) that they ARE accountable, and that the system is working exactly as it was designed. That this is the best country on earth, and that people have never had as much freedom and wealth as Americans enjoy today. They live in a bubble, and like Nero, will be the last to know (if they ever do) that they are utter failures.
The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? - Michigan Law Review.
Courts do not want to decide any issue that rings of political controversy. Doing so taints the (false) impression they work mightily to maintain, that they are above politics.
No, they can't ... apparently. In CA, the proponents who put Prop 8 (no gay marriage) on the ballot were granted the right to defend Prop 8 in court because the State refused to do so. Under CA law, that is legal. They have standing because they initiated the proposition for the ballot. When the case got to SCOTUS, the court said those same proponents lacked standing to bring the case in the federal court system.
The real problem that we have is that the judiciary is claiming they don’t need to rule - that it’s nobody’s business and nobody is being harmed by us not having any answers.
***A hole in the system. The only way such things get patched up is when some big-money interest is at stake.