Replies

“So you don't think this judge was attempting to silence and intimidate Taitz and others? Do you think it might be okay to decide one of these cases on the merits, whether Orly of Berg or Donofrio or Appuzzo or whoever”

Standing is part of a case's legal merit. As I have said before, this isn't King Soloman’s court. You don't get to just show up and have a wise man pronounce on whatever is bugging you. It has to be an actionable case as framed within the law.

And, no, I think to anyone who understands the law it is obviously insane to think Land was trying to silence her. Read the transcript for heaven's sake. He bends over backward to try and lead an incompetent attorney to basic legal points to ascertain if she can frame anything actionable. She can't, at which point she responds with rage and anger that culminates in accusing the judge of treason. That is inexcusable conduct in a court, particularly one that has had to spoon feed her through a simple proceeding. It will get sanctions 100% of the time, and her brief indicates she still doesn't have the slightest comprehension of what Judge Land tried to tell her.

You don't get to just show up and have a wise man pronounce on whatever is bugging you. It has to be an actionable case as framed within the law.

You may be correct about the way "standing" has evolved in our law. But that doesn't make the concept itself Constitutional if it offers no remedy to protect against what would be a clear violation of the Constitution. The "standing" cases that I looked at seem to be related to whether a taxpayer, not otherwise injured, can challenge the Constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. This isn't quite the same thing.

I think it could be argued that the First Amendment guarantees "standing" to citizens to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (which is derived from the Magna Carta) as much as it guarantees "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech." To argue that nothing can be done without enabling legislation about a usurper being President is to allow Congress to amend the Constitution in a manner other than than specifically laid out in the Constitution. Certainly if the Court has decided that term limits are unconstitutional because they extend the qualifications (for Congress) beyond those specifically stated, then the Amendment process must certainly be limited to those specifically stated.

ML/NJ

I would add to what I said about "standing" above that it generally rules out claims about some future damage that one may incur. That is, the plaintiff has to show past damage to have "standing." But the "natural born citizen" requirement is all about preventing future damage to the nation which I would claim makes "standing" an irrelevant concept if the NBC requirement is to have any weight.

ML/NJ