Let me try again now that I know the specific misunderstanding...
To have standing you have to have been ‘injured’. When you research the way the dealer closings went down per the Obama administration, there was one clear concise link...most of them were either dealers who are registered Republicans or dealers who were outspoken against the Obama administrations policies on the economy and a lot of them (those in the lawsuit) were of the most profoitable and independently run ( not in need of govt subsidies).
The dealerships that remained open and that were close to those (the most profitable & economically viable) that were shut down, all had one very important tie... A direct connection to Obama & the Democrats via political donations & political appointments.
Hope this helps.
patlin,
If that is Donofrio’s argument, then I wish him the best but I feel he is stretching it and will not be successful on these grounds of ineligibility.
Believe me, I would wish that there was a way to get at the longform birth certificate but I don’t think this angle will succeed. Here’s why I think that:
According to your summary, the dealers appear to be harmed by what appears to be partisan favoritism. They appear to be more than harmed, they were actually ‘demolished’.
In order to bring a cause of action against the persons responsible for thie ‘illegal demolition’, there has to be a set of statutes to reference, and that would include motives and actions that were clear and direct in causing the harm.
And if the harmful actions were not clear and direct, then there is a good chance to show that the effects were entirely partisan by outcome. That’s discrimination in theory.
In such cases of this kind of partisan discrimination, the plaintiffs would seek restitution and damages.
Now further, if it can be shown that Obama was aware and did not move to stop this illegal partisan abuse, or if it can be shown that he was directly involved, then there is a case to sue him directly and to sue his office for a civil infringement action. There is an idea that if Obama was deliberate in his motivation to harm those dealers, then the cause could be penal and could be grounds for impeachment.
So I can see how a lawyer could address this wrong by filing against the illegality and partisan discriminatory actions of government officials that are implicated. But I still see no clear path to challenge eligibility.
In the Keyes case, it certainly seemed plausible that he could bring suit against Obama’s eligibility but the problem for him was that he could not show harm, because he was such a minor candidate that there was no conceivable way that the election outcome could have been any different. So Keyes lost on ‘standing’. I don’t like that outcome, and I believe it should ‘just be’ that a candidate for office should produce documents to show eligibility including at the top of the list a long form birth certificate.
I hate this whole business of seeing persons lose case after case on the eligibility issue because Obama could end their uncertaintly in about 5 minutes and he chooses not to. That tells me he is a creep. Because if he indeed was born in Hawaii, then he should permit his long form BC to be made public.
The Left is having a field day with walloping those who challenge eligibility. The image they project is of a bunch of juveniles jumping up and down thumping their chests while hollering “Birther! Birther!” in lieu of “Loser! Loser!”. It hurts.
Donofrio had a better tactic of challenging the department official in Hawaii under the laws of that State for revealing their deliberation in writing that they had ‘determined’ Obama was a natural born citizen. But I think he was stumped in that effort.