Timeline for Does the "natural born Citizen" requirement for presidency violate the ICERD?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://law.stackexchange.com/ with https://law.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 23:39 | comment | added | grovkin | @ohwilleke, well, a court would have to issue a ruling on whether a potential plaintiff would have standing to bring the suit. In as much as issuing that ruling, the court would have a standing to adjudicate (even if the ruling was that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the suit). | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 23:31 | comment | added | ohwilleke | No. They aren't. A court only has standing to adjudicate the matter if the plaintiff has standing to bring the suit. Operationally, standing is a motion under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim is a motion under FRCP 12(b)(6). You get to present evidence on 12(b)(1) motions but not on 12(b)(6) motions. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 23:16 | comment | added | grovkin | @ohwilleke, you are making an argument that a court would have standing to adjudicate the matter. I was not disputing that. I was saying that no plaintiff could make an argument that he/she would have a standing to bring the suit. These are distinct. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 22:51 | comment | added | ohwilleke | No. Lack of standing is a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve a disputed question of law. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. This is why standing is evaluated under the alleged cause of action and not based upon an actual legal right to relief which is analytically distinct and procedurally distinct. A mere citizen or taxpayer wouldn't even have standing to raise this issue, but a candidate would have standing even though the question of law he raised he would probably lose. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 22:42 | comment | added | grovkin | @ohwilleke, but if the court were to find that the US did violate the treaty, the fact that the Constitution supersedes treaties would force such a violation to be treated as not injurious. So the suit would not establish injury even in the case of a positive outcome for the plaintiff. And without a possibility of establishing injury, there is no standing. In other words, if there is no injury (by law) even if a defendant stipulates to all the facts of the case alleged by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff doesn't have standing. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 22:15 | comment | added | ohwilleke | I think anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States, but is a U.S. citizen aged 35 years of age or older who has filled out a petition to run for President would have standing to sue. Standing simply requires an actual injury related to the claim made in the lawsuit. I don't think that they would win on the merits and might even be dismissed on the pleadings, but I don't think that standing would be a problem for an appropriate person bringing suit. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 22:00 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 21:14 | review | Late answers | |||
| Mar 20, 2017 at 21:30 | |||||
| Mar 20, 2017 at 20:56 | history | answered | grovkin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |