Neither the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court of the United States saw fit to overturn Judge Carter.
Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch have found that an ineligible person was inaugurated.
Courts have ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. No court has ruled to the contrary.
For example, one of several rulings: Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Cite the evidence this ruling was based upon. If you can't do it this shift, come up with it when you get back to work tomorrow.
Thanks for the great examples of circular logic. All it takes is a look at ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said:
United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.
Different legal reasons?? Evidently Judge Carter wasn't exactly right in his views. As far as the legislative branch finding that an ineligible person was inaugurated --- that's like expecting blind people to point at other blind people. We already know this issue is partisan and that the balance of power is on the Democrat side. We also know this issue has been marginalized with accusations of racism, so Republicans are afraid to touch it. This example means nothing. The judicial branch is hiding behing standing and a variety of legal hurdles. They can't even agree with each other as I've just shown. And as for courts that have "ruled Obama to be a natural-born citizen," ... again the reasoning and legal foundation is inconsistent with each other and with the Supreme Court precedent. And thanks for pointing out Judge Clay Land, an expert at giving ridiculous decisions. What you quoted is a personal opinion for which Judge Land gives NO REASONABLE LEGAL BASIS. Judge Land pretend he's dealing in facts, but then he say stuff like this:
Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers.
An "official birth certificate" isn't about being satisfactory to someone's counsel or to her so-called "followers." There are Federal and State Rules that constitute what a legal birth certificate must contain. Obama's jpgs and PDFs don't comply with those rules. Judge Land ignores that presidential candidates must attest to their eligiblity to get on states' election ballots and that eligiblity can be challenged when there is no clear legal evidence to support a candidate's claim of eligibility. That burden DOES fall on such a candidate, especially when there's a preponderance of evidence to show that the public record says such a person was born outside of the United States. Why is it so hard for these judges to be consistent with each other and to follow the law??