Replies

While I don’t like the idea of judges deciding qualification [too much power for people with Kelo-level ethics], I don’t see the logic, Jamese.

“Just because it is your personal opinion that the President isn’t the President and the two new Supreme Court justices aren’t really Supreme Court Justices doesn’t make it so.”

The reverse is even worse — assumption that a tyrant actually has power. I’m no lawyer, but I know this — there is only one truth. According to the Constitution, the burden of proof is on the President. If he can’t prove his qualification, he’s not qualified.

The “truth” that you think you know is incorrect. The United States legal system since the founding of the republic has operated under the ancient legal doctrine of “presumption of innocence.” What that means in this case is that Obama does not need to prove his eligibility beyond the proof that has already been provided which got him 365 Electoral College votes that were counted and certified by Vice President Cheney before a joint session of Congress with no objections from any of the 535 members of Congress (it only takes TWO members of Congress to object and an investigation would have been necessitated) and with Obama being officially sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts. Obama’s political opposition has the burden to prove him to be ineligible. Thus far they have failed.

The Republican Governor of Hawaii has confirmed his birth in that state, the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii has authorized the release of official statements confirming Obama’s birth in that state and the Director of The Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Records have both confirmed Obama’s birth at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961 in the city of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii. Birth announcements appeared in both Honolulu newspapers for a male child born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama in the August 13 and August 14, 1961 editions of the local Honolulu newspapers.

Thus far in 73 adjudicated attempts to challenge his eligiblity including eight appeals to the US Supreme Court, no Court has ruled him to be ineligible.

I’ll let a federal judge who actually issued a ruling on Obama’s eligibility speak for me:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, HE BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.

The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009

You have the option of advocating for Obama’s impeachment by Congress as was done with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, trying to convince a prosecuting attorney to indict Obama for a crime such as forgery or election fraud which could force his resignation as was done with Richard Nixon, or at the very least voting against him in the 2012 election on eligibility grounds.