Birthers have spent the last 3+ years being schooled on standing. It's pretty obvious that the only avenue left to them is to put up a Presidential candidate and make a timely ballot challenge.

Other than OPOVV, who has declared? Where is Keyes in this now?

Could it be that there will be no ballot challenge? Could it be that the only birther activity we will see from now on are "summits" and other foolishness designed solely to separate idiots from their cash?

Not sure if he's officially declared, but Cody Robert Judy sez he's running.

I'm hopeful that the Ninth will opine on whether a (birfer) challenger from among the presidential candidates need be a "viable" candidate, which Keyes I don't believe qualified in the last election and likely would not again.

Birther issues aside, I really don't want the 9th to establish some sort of "viability" rule that is more restrictive than simply qualifying for the ballot. Minority candidates should have a voice, especially where there is a real question of eligibility, election fraud, etc. that the major parties do not address.

I don't have any disagreement with your statement. I merely point out that Keyes' "viability" as a candidate was one of the questions raised by Judge Carter. I still don't believe the issue is justiciable, regardless of his viability or not.

There are mechanisms in place to challenge a candidate's placement on the ballot. I believe there will be a large number of those filed in the upcoming elections. I hope they can file one properly and it makes its way through the courts.

I would be highly uncomfortable with such a ruling, which would have essentially deprived Adam Clayton Powell of standing to challenge his exclusion from the House of Representatives as nonjusticiable, when they refused to seat him (he was "uppity" you see although it was disguised as a morals issue). Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

I would also be troubled by a court basing a decision on whether a candidate were "viable." That should be up to the voters.

I would be less uncomfortable with a finding that a particular birther candidate were, in fact, an outright sham candidate, and such a state of mind could be inferred from their actions and statements.

If a non-fraudulent campaign were to appear and bring a claim in a timely manner and get to SCOTUS with it (they would have to start now to have even a chance of that), they would simply rule that yes, the President is an NBC, GTFO. A full-tilt bozo like Cody Judy doesn't qualify, IMO, as his candidacy is, from his own statements, a sham to use as an excuse to birf.

IMO Keyes should have had standing, had be brought his case in a timely fashion.

I agree, Keyes should have had standing but timeliness was not his only problem. At least in California, suing the SOS is not how an election challenge is conducted.

Birthers are unlikely to find a candidate to challenge Obama in a Democratic primary. But I would think they would be working to get someone on a general election ballot in order to achieve the standing that has eluded them so far. Millions of Americans stand behind the birthers! There must be someone out there!

Meh.

Which is why a birther should have pulled a Dunn and immediately reregistered as a democrat.

As raicha pointed out he had other problems with his suit besides standing in the Bowen case.

I agree he should have had standing in Barnett. Having standing in that case, IMO, still would not get the case resolved by the courts as they do not have jurisdiction to do so, also too, in my uneducated legal opinion.

Hmm, at the risk of helping the birfers, let me be clear about what I mean by standing: a legal interest in the election. Under California's election statutes, a candidate in an election with Obama could have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility to appear on the ballot. That challenge would need to be in the form an affidavit as to evidence of fraud or other disqualifying information.

I really think it is possible to do. Just not possible for the idiots that remain as active birthers.

I think such a challenge is available under most if not all state election statutes.

As to presenting one with "evidence" of fraud or other disqualifying information, just exactly what evidence would that be?

I think it would be possible to file an affidavit with undisputed facts and then ask for summary judgment on the whole Vattel thingy.

They don't have any other evidence so they are kind of screwed there.

Well, as I've stated earlier and many times over, if they can properly file such an objection I would love to watch it go through the courts.

Of course, once that Vattel thingy was shot out of the water by several courts in a row, all the way up to SCOTUS, they would merely claim it proof that all the courts are bought off by the evil Obama/Soros machine and proves it's time for a revolution, just as they've stated for years... not to mention the fact that Obama would still not have proven he was born in HI.

Too hard. File a motion to dismiss and ask the court to take judicial notice of the birth certificate.

Game. Set. Match.

Any. Day. Now.

Nooo. I mean that the birthers would file for summary judgment. File an affidavit to begin the ballot challenge, alleging the facts Obama admits: I was born a poor black man in Hawaii of solid Kenyan stock. Then go full Vattel in a motion for summary judgment.

Easy peasy. No messy birth certificates, no SSN. Just a clear walk through the voluminous case law supporting the two-parent citizenship requirement.

Admissible evidence is needed to support a motion for summary judgment.

As you know, there isn't any.

There is no admissible evidence that he was born in Kenya or has a fake birth certificate or fake SSN.

My proposal doesn't bring up any of that.

The facts alleged would be those that the President himself and the State of Hawaii confirm. Born in Hawaii via a Kenyan papa. Apply the law.

I acknowledge it is tricky to obtain a competent affidavit alleging those undisputed facts and the rules for taking judicial notice don't stretch quite this far. But Birtherdom has so many lawyers that are so much smarter than I. They can get 'er done.

I agree Keyes had more problems than standing, although standing would not have been one of them had he brought his case in a timely manner instead of after the inauguration. He then would have been entitled to lose for any of a grab-bag of reasons. Mootness, however, is also a lack of standing, taken in the course of time. It is in this case an acknowledgment that even had Keyes once had standing, he subsequently lost it.

I believe a candidate would have standing to challenge the certification of a vote. Using a procedure for such a challenge as an attempt in to remove someone already elected to federal office is bogus. Keyes's challenge in state court was similarly bogus. While filed before the inauguration, it was a Merooni-like attempt to place the burden of proof on the challenged candidate rather than the person challenging the other candidate, and Keyes presented literally nothing in the way of admissible evidence (as well as a host of other procedural failures and failures to state a case with any merit).

While Keyes might have had standing, IMO he would not have been entitled to anything more than a look at the short form BC released during the campaign, as it shows birth in Hawaii, therefore natural born status, right?

If Keyes is a Vattelist, the birth certificate does not settle the question. It merely establishes the facts, not the law to apply to the facts. A motion for summary judgment by a birther would say: it is a fact Obama was born to a non-citizen and the law says that is not natural born.

The court would then rule on what natural born means under the Constitution.

If the right case is brought at the right time by the right person, they will rule on it.

I think a federal district court would rule on it.

But then the federal appeals court will probably summarily affirm, and the Supremes have more important cases to tackle.

That's just a rough guess.

The COLB originally issued by the State of Hawaii would be treated as presumptively valid. I am certain the party challenging its validity would carry the burden to produce evidence that it was not valid, and believe that burden would be that the evidence be clear and convincing. Only if the challenging party carried both burdens, production and persuasion, would the proponent of the COLB need to lift so much as a finger to prove its validity.

Even assuming the perfect birfer storm of standing and justiciability, and the even more unlikely event that the birfers had a lawyer who wasn't a complete imbecile like Orly Taitz, the birfers would lose again based on the utter falsity of their lying claims, as demonstrated by the original COLB.

I think raicha's not talking about the validity of the COLB or even questioning his birth in Hawaii.

I think she's saying that a birther's best avenue would be to say "GIVEN that he was born in Hawaii, he's still not eligible because his daddy wasn't a U.S. citizen."

In other words, leave out all the lies about the facts, and just go with the lie about the law.

The case could still be resolved by summary judgment, meaning there never will be a trial ... but a plaintiff with standing might could get a ruling on the Vattel nonsense, which of course would rely somewhat on Ankeny, even if in a different jurisdiction.

If Taitz will advance me $250,000 as a minimum fee (against $975 an hour), and provide me with an appropriate candidate or plaintiff, I will file and prosecute a case to litigate the validity of President Obama's eligibility, and do so competently. Two conditions -- the fee has to be paid in advance and Orly can't touch the pleadings or appear as co-counsel.

Sadly, I cannot guarantee the result (although I can make predictions). But this would be a situation where rather than having a bunch of buffoons litigating the case, there would actually be someone competent doing so. Having competent counsel will be important, too, since deadlines and time pressure will make it important that someone who knows what s/he is doing prosecutes the action.

Orly -- are you feeling lucky?

Such a deal! Can I be your paralegal?