[nathanbedford]

I have several times posted my belief that the Obama vault certificate should be produced. I come to this belief along the same lines as the author, that is, the constitutional requirement for the office must be observed and there must be a remedy(a right which can be vindicated) in the public to see that its constitution is being observed.

We have for a couple of generations now thought only of the court as the place to have these rights vindicated. The Court has often dodged these cases when it finds them inconvenient by finding that the supplicant does not have "standing." I think there is a very high probability the court will dismiss all of these cases on the issue of standing. I say this even though I am aware that there are at least two cases which come at the matter from a different angle which might somehow provide standing. Standing here being defined as an interest in the petitioner which is concrete and explicit enough that the court should hear his claim.

There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.

These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy.

[David]

The Court has often dodged these cases when it finds them inconvenient by finding that the supplicant does not have "standing." I think there is a very high probability the court will dismiss all of these cases on the issue of standing. I say this even though I am aware that there are at least two cases which come at the matter from a different angle which might somehow provide standing. Standing here being defined as an interest in the petitioner which is concrete and explicit enough that the court should hear his claim.

There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified. Second, there is the possibility that the court might dump this off on some agency like the Federal Election Commission. Third, the court might hold that the matter should be decided by the electoral College saying that this is essentially a political question for them. Fourth, the court might hold this is a matter to be determined by the Senate and the House of Representatives, again, declaring this to be a political question.

Standing is another procedural rule of the legal system designed to put the court in a position where its orders are enforceable. So are the requirements of a case or controversy (plaintiff and defendant on opposite sides of an argument with harm flowing from one to the other); jurisdiction; and justiciability.

You may view those as dodges but they are not--they are substantive legal requirements of getting a legal proceeding before the courts; they exist for a reason.

In the case at hand, had competent counsel been engaged to pursue the issue last spring, the issue would have been resolved. The narrow time window in which a case could have been pursued to a decision between the election and the Electoral College is probably closing fast enough now that it will not be possible to get an effective challenge in place.

But other forms of action exist between the Electoral College and again after inauguration. Capable lawyers will ultimately get the issue before a court with the power to decide the issue.

[Yaelle]

These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy.

But what could be more of a law than the Constitution? If the SCOTUS says that this is something that should be done by the SoS of each state, well, what if the SoS is politically inclined NOT to do so?

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be somewhat above politics, and the last resort if the rest of the country is deciding EVERYTHING based on political coercion? I mean, that is our problem, isn't it? Our public systems of information (MSM) all want Obama to be President so they wouldn't call for vetting him properly, whether it's the law or not.

[TXnMA]

"These are ready exits to the court if they decide to call this a political question and not a legal controversy."

There is one member of the Supreme Court who has no "ready exit":

The Justice (usually Chief Justice) who swears in a candidate who does not meet all Constitutional requirements for the office of President has violated his own oath of office.

For that one Justice, there is no "ready exit"!!!

There is only honor or dishonor.

[Fishrrman]

“There is however another means for the court to dodge this case which has troubled me from the very beginning. The court might well hold that there are other venues for these matters to be determined. First there is the matter of the secretaries of state of the individual states acting to remove from the ballot someone who is disqualified”

I’ve been following the “birth certificate issue” from the time it first became known, but frankly, I don’t think any actions that have been taken up to this point are going to prevent Obama from assuming the office of the presidency.

The operative phrase, however, is “up to this point”. I don’t believe that the matter will be settled on January 20th, or at any time in the future until the facts are revealed and the original birth certificate is unsealed for all to see.

However, our defeat on this issue _today_ should not preclude us from taking action that may bring us victory at a later date. And here’s what I think could be done:

There are still conservative states with majority-conservative legislatures. I propose that between now and 2012, conservatives should concentrate their efforts on or two (or possibly more) states in attempting to pass laws governing the eligibility of presidential candidates, insofar as their qualifications to be candidates in those states is concerned. That is to say, such laws should mandate that the Secretary of State should not permit a presidential candidate (or that candidate’s electors) to be on the ballot unless and until sufficient evidence has been provided to confirm that that candidate meets all Constitutional qualifications to BE a candidate for president, including (but not limited to) the furnishing of an original copy of the candidate’s birth certificate.

Of course, this does nothing for the person who will be inagurated on January 20, 2009. But once these laws are on the books, if that same person wishes to appear on these states’ ballots in 2012, he will be required to comply with specific state laws regarding elibility for office.

I think my proposal is logical and could be reasonably expected to pass, at least in one conservative state. Once done, it would change the game plan for 2012.

- John