You’re presenting a logical fallacy. These cases have been conveniently ignored on the basis of standing, not disapproval of Vattel. You’re using this argument because your previous claim about Vattel was thoroughly debunked.
From the internet site “lectric law library:”
STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).”
A ruling on the merits (that the suit lacks merit to proceed) is not “ignoring” the lawsuit, it is issuing a definitive decision on it.
The Supreme Court of the United States has now had different nine opportunities to review plaintiff’s petitions for Writs of Certiorari or Applications for Stays in appeals challenging Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility to be President of the United States as a “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section I.
Those nine opportunities were: “Berg v Obama”, “Beverly v FEC”, “Craig v US”, “Donofrio v Wells”, “Herbert v US”, “Obama, Roberts, Lightfoot v Bowen”, “Rhodes v MacDonald”, “Schneller v Cortes”, and “Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.”
Standing is not an issue at the Supreme Court Of The United States. The high court takes on any appeal that the Justices (four of them need to agree) deem important enough to warrant a full hearing before the Court.
Vatell’s Law of Nations also could be introduced as evidence in a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for having committed election fraud.
There are also no issues of standing to be considered in a criminal proceeding.
Zero has no BC in HI...per former election official of HI...
This is pure nonsense.
"Court takes the back road: Denies Newdow case on standing."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Atheist plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked proper "standing" to legal challenge the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.