FWIW, it seems that the 50 Secretaries of States having been charged with the responsibility to vet the candidates for the highest office in the land were quiescent relying on the public to do its job. And we, the public in 2008, were either asleep at the switch or intimidated by the racial context of the historic election etc., but the question looms why no one could get traction in any State Court for the election of 2012 or was Arizona the test case with the others accepting its decision?
“Would such a forgery be an impeacheable offence?”
__
I believe it would. Apparently, the members of the House Judiciary Committee have not been persuaded that there is sufficient evidence of a forgery to warrant hearings on the subject.
Yes, it would be an impeachable. Whenever you see the word impeach, think ‘indictment of the President’. In fact the House + Senate can impeach and convict a President for just looking at them sideways — if they had the votes and the political will.
Your FYI part is spot on and shows a good understanding of what the situation is. Instead of taking all this time ranting and raving and diminishing the luster of the Conservative party, they should have worked on and lobbied for new law governing a definitive method of determining eligibility.
But that doesn’t help put money in the coffers of the various ‘cottage industries of controversy and conspiracy.
Baker vs. Carr is the definitive precedent regarding SCOTUS and the ‘Political Question Doctrine’ and specifically enumerates the reasons the SCOTUS will not take up a political case such as eligibility.
Quoting from a well known source and verifiable through LexisNexis.
Cases that are political in nature are marked by: [I see 4 of 6 that fit the birther issue quite nicely]
“Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;” as an example of this, Brennan cited issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, arguing that cases involving such matters would be “political questions”
“A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;”
“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;”
“The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”
“An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;”
“The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”