The explanation for lack of standing, if it comes to that, will be as bogus as the rest of the lack of standing decisions that have been flippantly made. The notion that citizenry has no standing - and suffers no direct harm - from an imposter playing president is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
So it's all one big conspiracy? The man can manipulate the entire legal system and the governments in half a dozen countries but he can't pass his health care plan? Go figure.
The notion that citizenry has no standing - and suffers no direct harm - from an imposter playing president is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
Taitz's plaintiff has to suffer real harm. An injury in fact to a legally protected interest. One that is clearly identified, and which has occured or is imminent. This injury must be actual, not conjectural or hypothetical. What's the injury suffered in this case?
Read Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 some day. It’s a decent introduction to the concept of taxpayer standing.