Personally, I think everyone and anyone within the democrat's party who signed off on zero being legit should be sued so we can see just what vetting was done to ensure zero was within Constitutional compliance.
“Since all I seem to hear out of these ‘reports’ is ‘lacks standing’; I’m curious if it has yet been defined just who in the hell actually has standing?”
The standard is that the plantiffs must “demonstrate a specific and individualized injury” resulting in this case from purported violation of the NBC clause. Now, what constitutes demonstration, what is or isn’t “specific,” what is properly “individualized,” and what counts as an “injury” is up entirely to the discretion of judges. Unsurprisingly they tend to fall down on the side of what they had already made their minds up not to have trials about.
Judges are forever pulling such standards out of thin air to justify their preconceived notions. Random citizens pot-shotting at the president are a nuisance and eat up precious time, so...um...they don’t have standing. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Did you ever wonder why SCOTUS only considers certain items in the Bill of Rights—such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th—to have been “incorporated” by the 14th amendment into applying to the states, whereas certain others—such as the 2nd and 9th—haven’t? Well, look no further than the infamous Footnote 4 of the U.S. v. Carolene Products Co. decision. Out of thin air it set up a standard whereby “rational-basis review” applies to economic and other regulations, whereas laws affecting “insular minorities” require more heightened review.
This is so, I guess, because the 14th amendment was written with the intent of protecting former slaves. Whatever it was, eventually it led to favoring particular parts of the Bill of Rights over others. This despite the fact that “rational basis” and “heightened scrutiny” have no basis in actual law, nor does the universal judicial practice these days of granting a “presumption of Constitutionality” to laws that don’t go after “insular minorities” or otherwise run afoul of the justices’ preferred amendments.
It all comes out of thin air, as does their standard for standing to insist that presidential eligibility requirements are met.
The answer to that question is found by examining the jurisdiction in which the Supreme Court is sitting when they rule. And that jurisdiction is federal administrative. Thus they are limited to ruling on issues of federal administration, which is either internal governmental issues or... corporate issues. Because the federal government issues articles of incorporations, which then exist under federal administrative corporate law.
I'm sorry, did you hear anything in the above that addresses natural human beings? Either does the Supreme Court.
So who has standing? Government officials acting in their administrative capacities, and corporate officers acting in their corporate capacities.
But what about The People?
:: shrug ::
To rule on an issue concerning The People, the Supreme Court would have to choose to sit in their Common Law jurisdictional capacity.
They haven't chosen to do that.
But don't worry. At any time, the COULD choose to do that, and then they'd be shocked - shocked, I tell you - that Obama's NBC status wasn't certified.