The reason that '
standing' is so important here is that some of the courts which have previously ruled on the issue -- which is to say, that have
refused even to consider the question -- had based their refusal on their claim/ruling that a
mere US citizens, whether civilian or military, has no 'standing' to petitioned the courts to order the political branches of the US Federal government to ensure that a specific provision of the US Constitution be enforced and be seen to be enforced.
Think about this "legal reasoning", Gentle Reader!
By way of Vox Day, Karl Denninger: Oh Hoh Hoh -- Standing ESTABLISHED
Ok, here we go.
The charges and specifications are two-fold: - Is Obama's "birth certificate" valid? Quite simply now we get discovery, where the original microfilm and bound book pages can be inspected (and they better be there, and in order. I will note that it is extremely difficult to tamper with microfilm without being detected!)
- What's the story on the Social Security Number? Oh that could be a problem eh?
Maybe there's nothing to all this, and maybe there is. But thus far Obama has managed to deflect attention from the facts with procedural maneuvers (and one has to ask why when it would be simpler -- and rather more final, to dispose of the facts instead.)
At the same time, the real issue here under the US Constitution is not *where* Obama was born, but what was his US citizenship status -- as relates to the citizenship status of his parents -- at the time of his birth. While his birth certificate -- which, of course, has never been released -- is an important question in its own right, it has served as an effective distraction from the real Constitutional issue. One has to wonder whether that is intentional.
John McCain was not born on US soil ... but he is a "natural born (US) citizen", because at the time of his birth, both his parents were:
1) US citizens;
2) adults.
These conditions are not held to be true of Obama.
President Chester Arthur (perhaps one should say "President" Chester Arthur) was born on US soil, of that there was no question, as had been his mother and all her people for many generations. BUT, his father was born a subject of the British crown. SO, his political opponents, in an attempt to disqualify him from standing for election -- especially the Democrats, one might add -- raised the legitimate question of whether Chester Arthur was a "natural born (US) citizen". Apparently, Arthur diffused the issue in politics (but not in truth) by lying about when his father attained US citizenship, that is by dishonestly providing "evidence" that his father was a US citizen at the time of his birth ... and there were enough Americans who were satisfied with being lied to to let it pass.
But, what do Obama and today's Democrats do? Do they even have the decency to honor the Constitution to the extent of providing false information concerning the citizenship status of his parents? No, not at all: setting the obvious pattern for his entire Administration, they declare that the Constitution's requirements are irrelevant ... and far too many Republicans and "conservative" pundits are willing to go along with so gutting the Constitution. [edit: Ann Coulter is only one of just about all of them who are willing to punt on this issue, I linked to her piece only because it's the most recent instance I've come across]
ONCE AGAIN: the Constitutional issue is not "Where was Barack Hussein Obama II born?", it is "Does Barack Hussein Obama II meet the minimal US Constitutional requirements for holding the office of US President, among them that of being a 'natural born citizen' of the United States?"
edit:
And, of course, the "liberals" and, to the extent there is any difference between the two groups, the Democrats -- the very party of legal and institutional (and violent) racism -- are going to try to distract attention from the substantive issue by raising the red-herring of this ruling having come from a court of a State of the former "Deep South".
