Well this prognosis of yours might make some sense BP2, if all presidents were in fact created equal. This is not the case , and as Obama continues to wreck havoc with his policies both domestically and internationally, and as his popularity as a treasonous unamerican president declines, it may become clear that the court MUST act.
We are not at that point yet, but we are indeed getting there. Thomas's remark makes us all realize that SCOTUS is keeping an eye on Obama, and this is especially true after Obama's gratuitous pep rally remarks about SCOTUS in his last "state of confusion" address to the joint "recession" of Congress.
Americans elected an idealogue-thug , and he has established a Junta , a shadow government bent on dismantling our constitutional government, or even worse, using the constitutional government as a cloak for nefarious,treasonous activity, to ram through a "reformation" to bring about the Republic's destruction that the people do not want.
So we will have to see how much worse the Obama Junta gets. If it does, I would expect that the federal court system may very well find itself considering the question of Article II and our current pretender.It remains to be seen. It is not cut and dry as you seem to think. Secondly, the more we press the issue of the courts considering the question, the more informed the US public is beginning to be on the subject, despite the stonewalling of the MSM. ( also witness the waves of Holder/Emmanual,/Obama Trollies at work on FR to spin away the birther movement, unsuccessfully I might add, they do not want this as an election issue and are desperate to villify the movement) It is a serious issue, and the remedy might well be that it will be an election issue in Nov, 2010 and 2012.The state of Arizona thinks so because of legislation it passed on vetting the presidential candidates natural birth status.We have made huge inroads into the issue politically. The judicial aspect may have to come along before long, depending on the circumstances created by the Obama Junta and his treasonous, ba$tardly Tzars.
BP2 I hope you are wrong about the necessity for a qualified suit. There is somewhere a clause which appears to anticipate a corrupted federal court system. It may have been John Marshall, but there is a circumstance where the supreme court is ordered to act directly. We need an attorney to explain what original jurisdiction means to the supreme court in cases involving direct interpretation. These days with so much agitprop in the air, no single statement can be trusted, unless it comes from the words of framers or supreme court cases. That puts the importance of original intent in relief. I will search for the statement, but there are some real scholars who sometimes clarify things on these threads. No one should believe that legal statements need to be impenetrable. Demand clarity and that terms be defined. John Marshall was one of our finest examples, but there were others.
It seems likely as the dust is beginning to clear that Obama will one day say “I told you before I ran for president that I didn't believe the Constitution was relevant except as a historical document.” “When I said I was eligible I told everyone I was a “Native born U.S. citizen” and I have always believed that “Native born U.S. citizens are eligible to be president.” “John McCain was not a “native born U.S. citizen yet I believe he too was eligible.”
The left will interpret the Constitution for us as long as we allow them to.
