Replies

about ninety adjudicated lawsuits ....... How many of them were dismissed for lack of “standing”? Decisions made by POTUS can effect every person in this country. By what logic does a citizen not have “standing” to ask if the person in the oval office is authorized by the Constitution to be there? BTW, If there is nothing to hide, why spend millions on legal fees to hide as much of your background as possible? Also, where did that money come from? Personal funds? Government (taxpayer) funds? Campaign funds? Would taxpayer or campaign funds be legal to spend on this purpose?

Use your favorite search engine and enter the search term: “Article III standing.” Then maybe you’ll understand.
If John McCain had sued Obama or if Sarah Palin had sued Obama or if the Republican National Committee had sued Obama, they would have been granted standing because they could show DIRECT injury from the election of an ineligible candidate. But McCain-Palin-the RNC decided not to file suit.
The 69,315,496 voters who pulled a level or checked a box for Obama have constitutional rights too.

Obama didn’t accept public financing of his campaign so that he could exceed spending limits, but McCain took in $84 million of taxpayers’ dollars.

Here’s what a US District Court Judge who didn’t dismiss a lawsuit on grounds of standing and who was appointed by President George W. Bush had to say: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not inititated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. (See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009)commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawai’i statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961.”—US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009.
Judge Land denied a Temporary Restraining Order to Captain Connie Rhodes, US Army who sought to delay her deployment to Iraq until President Obama proved his natural born citizen status.

james, you’re illustrating a textbook example of “circular logic.” Pretty embarrassing that judges would employ such fallacies.

"Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve" ....... Note the difference in the 2 documents. The words "Legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" seem to be missing from the second one. The second one was filed, the first one was not. Also, like I asked earlier, why try to hide as much of your past as possible if there is no problem?