>>> Okay. What? I think I have to be lawyer just to read the thread title. Someone break this down to non-lawyer English for me.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the arguments.
The response makes an excellent case that this “legal standing” stuff is a bunch of BS.
In a nutshell, it says that the defendant’s motion to dismiss quotes no law or constitutional grounds for it’s claims...
and that the constitution provides for “THE PEOPLE” to have redress through the courts when elected officials and bodies (congress) fails to carry out it’s constitutional duty.
And that the courts are given the power to assert process where the constitution is vague. (i.e. no process for verification)
The majority of the response explained in detail with examples and powerful arguments why this whole process and history of other cases demonstrates that the defendant is hiding something, and most importantly that THE PEOPLE have every right to challenge constitutionality through the courts according to the 1st and 9th ammendments.
Sounded like Keyes wrote it himself.
and that the constitution provides for THE PEOPLE to have redress through the courts when elected officials and bodies (congress) fails to carry out its constitutional duty.
Oookay. So, they can find something out now that they couldn’t find out before because the MTD has no merit? Is that it?