[DoodleDawg]

You’re giving the same nonsense that allowed the media and courts to say that there will never, ever be anybody who ever has standing to sue over this.

The courts did identify one person who had the standing to sue, John McCain. He chose not to.

I bet you every last dime I have that the same arguments would not have legal sway if Hillary likewise has no way to prove that the votes would have gone to her.

If Cruz beats Clinton for the presidency in November then she would have standing to sue. But the courts will certainly find that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

If that is required, then the Constitution’s Article II is unconstitutional because it is not enforceable.

How can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

[Rurudyne]

Since FDR’s time...

[butterdezillion]

The Constitution is interpreted in such a way that if the Founders went to the trouble of putting something into the Constitution it must be interpreted wrongly if it is interpreted in such a way that it can never be enforced.

The Constitution can’t be unconstitutional, so if it is unenforceable then it’s not being interpreted properly.

IOW, what you’re saying has to be the wrong interpretation. Somebody HAS to have standing.