Logical vs Legal

I like the way this guy thinks. Commenting on the judge that threw out Philip Berg's lawsuit (seeking to make Posy-Toes produce his American Birth Certificate) on the grounds that Berg did not have "standing" to sue.

The question does arise, if The People don't have standing to determine that a candidate running for President is eligible for the office, who, exactly, does?

The judge would seem to be in error. Under his ruling, HITLER could have been elected President in 1936. Though Hitler couldn't have proven he was a natural born citizen of the United States, he wouldn't have had to, and no one would have had standing to challenge him. There exist Constitutional qualifications for President, but no Constitutionally designated authority charged with verifying such qualifications. Likewise, there is neither any Federal nor State statute designating such authority. Absent such, Ammendment X to the Constitution therefore assigns the right to challenge a Federal candidate's qualifications to the PEOPLE, thus affording them standing and a cause of action. The ruling should rightly be overturned on appeal and the case remanded for trial.

I have no idea whether this is "legally correct", but is certainly is "logical correct". Not that the twain often meet anymore.

The Gunslinger