[ml/nj]

To be a legally accepted plaintiff, you must make a case that the defendant damaged you, and you then have to quantify that damage.

This might be nice if it were true, but it isn't.

E.g. someone sues a restaurant owner because the restaurant's bathroom doesn't have a handicapped stall. Such suits pay off to the plaintiff (and his lawyers).

The whole notion of "standing" is absurd. If a citizen doesn't have the right to go to court to force compliance with the Constitution, it means that any part of the Constitution that the Congress doesn't like or has ignored is rendered moot because the Congress hasn't "granted" "standing." (As they have in the case of "handicapped" dump takers.)

ML/NJ

[Cold Heat]

That example is a example of a statutory violation, in this case the disability act.

So yes, there is standing...due to damage quantified as failure to provide services mandated by law and thus damage was done, emotionally or physically or both.

These thing are mitigated by forcing the restaurant to modernize the facilities plus a monetary punishment for not doing it in the first place.

What we are discussing here is a constitutional interpretation issue. To take the case, they would by necessity have to interpret the term, natural born, because it has never been done.

To do that they need someone with standing that has been damaged by it.

[Cold Heat]

All you need to do is look at the string of cases against Obama. All have been rejected due to standing and/or frivolity. A case against Cruz has already been rejected.

I will remind you again that federal courts also have a doctrine about political suits..

While that doctrine may not be a legal principle, they will find a reason to reject it that is.

[Cold Heat]

I remind you about this statement.

Now there is some ambiguity here. The definition of natural-born is given of plural children of plural parents. It is not entirely unreasonable to read this as a child of at least one citizen should be considered natural-born, though some who read it that way might also insist that the father is the one to confer this status. My own opinion is that both parents must have been citizens at the time of ones birth and that the place of birth is irrelevant regarding natural-born status. This should have eliminated Barack Obama, and because I believe he is ineligible, I really hope the Republicans do not nominate Ted Cruz, his political positions notwithstanding.

Under your interpretation, Donald trump would not qualify.