The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true. No court in the U.S up to and including the SCOTUS could do anything about it anyway, as it is a political issue and the only body with standing is the U.S Congress and since they fulfilled their Constitutional obligations and certified both the 2008 and 20012 Elections -- then we can assume they believed everything was in order.
> I can’t see how this has been buried by the Left’s shrieking.
The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true. No court in the U.S up to and including the SCOTUS could do anything about it anyway, as it is a political issue and the only body with standing is the U.S Congress and since they fulfilled their Constitutional obligations and certified both the 2008 and 20012 Elections — then we can assume they believed everything was in order.
I don’t buy that explanation. After reviewing Arpo’s evidence I’d say he has proven (to me at least) that he document was a forgery. I think the better explanation is that Soros or some other powers that be probably paid people in high places to ignore the issue. Money can buy anything with this administration including souls.
Unbucking felievable.
Even if you believe that Obama is eligible, the description of the Father's race on the birth certificate as 'African', the length of time that Obama took to release the form, the fact that Obama sealed his school records and Obama's own admission that he is a dual citizen should be reason enough for there to be valid questions and recognition by the courts that Americans have a duty to their Country to question his credentials.
“The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true.”
In a Court proceeding, the allegations are assumed to be true. The next step is for the Judge to determine if any particular harm has befallen the complainant and, if so, what can be done about it.
So far, no complainant has been able to show a particular harm, so the case is dismissed. A usurper can be tried in Court, but the plaintiff must described a particular harm; such as, a fine for not buying health insurance under a law signed into law by a usurper. Any particular harm or threat of harm for an act deemed illegal by a usurper gives standing to a plaintiff.
Even then, the usurper will not be removed by order of the Court. The Court will rule the plaintiff does not have to pay the fine or spend time in jail because the plaintiff has successfully objected to laws signed into law by the usurper.
After the usurper leaves office, through impeachment or term limit, the laws signed by the usurper cannot be objected to by the Defacto Officer Doctrine. Dems are running the clock out by giving temporary waivers. After Obama leaves, by term limit or impeachment, Obamacare becomes permanent and the fines (taxes) associated with it cannot be objected too.
Who's job is it to make a determination as to what the term "natural born Citizen" means in the context of the Constitution?
I believe that would fall on the (fed) courts, not Congress. SCOTUS could within their power, make a determination as to whether someone born owing allegiance to a foreign power is considered a "natural born Citizen" as intended by the framers for AII,S1,C5 purposes.
In other words, they could find someone born with foreign allegiance owed to be eligible or not.
bwahahahahahaha ...