We’ve got an election coming up that could remove him as surely as any court case.
Besides, the Constitution gives no role to the courts in deciding whether a president was properly elected. For good or bad, that role was given to the Electoral College and the Congress. These are intentionally political questions, not legal ones.
I think any attempt to expand the role of the courts farther is by definition a BAD IDEA. They already have far more power than the Founders intended. Let’s not add to it for fleeting political advantage.
In January, won't Speaker Boehner have the power to create an impeachment committee, if only for the purpose of investigating Obama's qualifications for office by subpenaing relevant documents?
Can you hear me, Speaker Boehner?
Constitutionality is precisely a legal question as the court has defined itself. Eligibility is a constitutional requirement.
Doesn’t the presence of the eligibility requirement in the Constitution make it a legal question? It’s not up to the states to change that without an amendment, as it is for a federal office.
This is true but two points must be made:
1. The issue is not whether Barry was "properly elected" but whether or not he is qualified.
2. SCOTUS broke that rule when they interfered in the 2000 election.
Vis-a-vis point 2, just has they took up an improper role in 2000, here they are abdicating their proper role, by refusing to hear whether or not a candidate is properly qualified, something the courts have done before for officeholders.
Although I am convinced there is a Serious Problem with Obozo's BC, I think your argument is the most sensible I have heard on the subject.
The issue now is assigning responsibility for the failure of Congress, the Electoral College and the officials in the Dem Party who failed to do their duty in certifying properly their candidate. This problem if it is eventually fully exposed should destroy the credibility of the entire Democrat Party as to end it. My concern is that "many" Republicans knew he was not "qualified" and said nothing. Was it due to complicity, stupidity or fear? There are many questions that need to be answered.
Where in the Constitution are either state governments (the people responsible for deciding how presidential electors are chosen) or Congress given the authority to interpret and apply the Constitution?
Article III directly gives the authority to the federal judiciary.
That means some state SOS is not allowed to decide what “natural born citizen” means, and without being able to decide that, how can they evaluate a candidate’s eligibility? Same thing holds true for Congress.
Every government official takes the oath to support and ‘defend’ the Constitutution. Using a cliche, a lot depends on what you mean by ‘defend’. It can be active or passive. To me the higher offices like Congress or Courts demand that the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be carried out in the active mode. Any person in these offices who seeing or knowing
of a wide public concern about some possible breach of the Constitution has a moral,ethical and legal obligation of their sworn ‘to defend’ oath to assure the citizens of the USA that the Constitution is wholy preserved from any suspected breach. In this framework of dedication it is apparent that the people occupying these offices, especially the Courts, have failed their oaths.
Every government official takes the oath to support and ‘defend’ the Constitutution. Using a cliche, a lot depends on what you mean by ‘defend’. It can be active or passive. To me the higher offices like Congress or Courts demand that the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be carried out in the active mode. Any person in these offices who seeing or knowing
of a wide public concern about some possible breach of the Constitution has a moral,ethical and legal obligation of their sworn ‘to defend’ oath to assure the citizens of the USA that the Constitution is wholy preserved from any suspected breach. In this framework of dedication it is apparent that the people occupying these offices, especially the Courts, have failed their oaths.
You are correct to a degree but the courts are there to uphold the law and the question is can Obamma serve as president if he is not a “natural born ctizen”? The law states he has to be the above! How he won the election means nothing was he qualified to run that means everything.