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 like Orly.
The problem is that you are convinced Obama is a usurper without any actual evidence to back that assertion up. You have urban legends, innuendo, and a bunch of wild “what ifs”. For very good reasons having to do with protecting individual freedom and liberty, courts don’t authorize fishing expeditions on that kind of stuff even if you had standing. You will never get any Court properly functioning under the Constitution to authorize discovery against anyone just because you think they might have done something wrong. You need credible evidence and a cogent argument that ties it all together. One of the big problems with Orly is that she simply rants about a bunch of noncredible evidence amid hyperbolic accusations without ever bothering to get down to meaningful citations of case law that would constitute a legal argument. And she can’t even be bothered to follow basic rules of submittal. Put simply, her briefs are gibberish to a court, and her behavior is outlandish..
It certainly does. What Birthers can never grasp is that the Constitution also gives Congress both the sole power to count the votes of the electors, and decide who was elected President, and to remove the President from office. Petition away.