For the most part you are wasting your time. Trying to teach people about legal principles such as standing, justicable controversies, political questions, etc., is nearly impossible when the response is to accuse the person trying to teach of being a troll or to accuse every judge who tries to follow the law and legal precedent of being biased and guilty of treason. The bottom line is that Oily Taitz has no business trying to practice law in the Federal Court system, She has no idea what she is doing and quite frankly, she has become an embarrassment to the Federal Bar.
In my opinion, any challenege to Obama's qualifications must come before the election from a person or political party that has a direct and personal stake in the outcome. Most states have election laws that provide a very narrow window of oppurtunity to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for Federal, state, or local office, in court, after the candidates name is placed upon the ballot, but before the election. We see these types of challanges all the time at the state and local level and they generally involve a challenge to the candidate's nominating petitions or residency within the district, that is initiated by an opposing candidate or polical party. Once the election is held, the focus shifts from the qualifications of the candidates to the number of votes and the qualificatons of the voters, and the only challenges that are allowed relate to the number of votes and the qualifications of a voter to vote in the election.
In my opinion, any judicial challenge to 0bama's qualifications should have been commenced by the GOP and/or McLame prior to the election as 0bama's name is placed on the ballot in each state. After the election is held, the only remedy is through the political process, i.e., impeachment. In addition, each state could pass a law that requires a candidate for POTUS to submit an originial or certified copy of the long form birth certificate as a condition precedent to getting his or her name on the state ballot. This requirement would give an opposing candidate or party specific grounds under state law as well as the constitution to challenge the qualifications of 0bama when his name is placed on the ballot in 2012.
Personally, the Federal Bar was an embarrassment to begin with, Standing issues only seem to come up when it is the Right that has a problem with it. I never hear about Standing being a problem when the Left goes to court. How rare is it when an Abortion, Environmental, or Civil Rights case is dismissed for Standing? It is amazing what a Lawyer can torture out of a very simple document and it has become a self-repeating process as those same lawyers become Judges or Senators.
Emerging from lurkerdom to say that you are not wasting your time. As someone following this controversy who is not a lawyer, I'm grateful that those who are lawyers will clarify on these threads what the legal issues are.
I've been a bit frustrated reading these threads when I see misstatements posted by either side - "Pakistan had a travel ban on US citizens in 1961!" or "If Obama's mother was a citizen, that makes him natural born!"
I value the legal explanations, don't stop.
Going back to lurking...
Unfortunately McLame had his own NBC problems, which he tried to circumvent, through a Sense of the Senate Resolution, which first included Obama, who was inexplicably removed.