[Cboldt]

The only opinion I'm stating is that SCOTUS would duck the controversy. All SCOTUS would have to do is expound on the part of the 20th amendment that says "If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified," and explain that the question of qualification is one for Congress to decide.

I understand your argument, my opinion is that SCOTUS would reject your argument.

[Ray76]

So you're back to the 20th now?

Where specifically in the 20th Amend is Congress empowered to decide eligibility for President?

The right of choice devolves upon Congress if "at the time fixed for the beginning of the term" both the President and Vice-President are either not qualified or are deceased. If this occurs Congress shall "[declare] who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." Congress does not decide eligibility but either declares, or provides a manner to select, who shall temporarily act as President until a President shall have qualified.

The 20th Amend does not apply anyway.

[Ray76]

Art II does not delegate to Congress determinations of eligibility.

[Usagi_yo]

“I understand your argument, my opinion is that SCOTUS would reject your argument”.

And rightly so seeings how there is only 1 way to remove a President. Read the Constitution. He could murder somebody on the whitehouse lawn and the judicial system won’t do jack about it because he has to be impeached first before prosecuted — not that in that event anybody would follow his orders anyhow, perhaps just his Koolaid Kadre.

[DiogenesLamp]

The only opinion I'm stating is that SCOTUS would duck the controversy.

That has been adequately demonstrated up to this point. The only way to FORCE them to take notice of this is if someone can find irrefutable proof that Obama was not born inside this country, and therefore does not even possess statutory citizenship. (He most definitely DOES NOT possess NATURAL citizenship.)

If it can be demonstrated that Obama has no legal claim to US Citizenship, then it would be such a serious breach of Article II that the court would have no choice but to take notice of it.

I'm thinking this "9" issue has to do with birth outside of the state of Hawaii, rather than race, because I vaguely remember that was the contention some years ago when these penciled in numbers on the "birth certificate" were first noticed.

If it does indeed have to do with race, then it is far less useful than if it has to do with place of birth.