Any possibility of the Supreme Court taking action on this issue has long been moot. The argument that the Supreme Court does not have the POWER to do anything, is nonsensical, because they can do anything they d@mn well please, and CALL it legal, but that topic is also moot.
The probability though, is that if the Supreme Court DID take up the Case, and DID find Obama to be "ineligible" because he hasn't demonstrated himself to be a "natural born citizen", regardless of what legal arguments you advance, that would be political death blow to Obama's administration. Legal power is not the only power wielded by the Court. If they SAY it, people will accept and believe it, regardless of what someone else claims the law says or means.
Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the birthers, what follows? Impeachment in the House, and removal by the Senate. Anyone care to lay odds?
That has been debated much also. Some assert that impeachment would be unnecessary because an ineligible President can be regarded as never having been President in the first place, but as I pointed out, the legal arguments are not the ONLY force which would remove him from power.
The POLITICAL argument (he's an illegitimate usurper, and the Supreme court SAYS so!) would either pressure him into resignation, or possibly produce sufficient anger in the country to demand it.
Not going to happen though. The best shot we ever had was getting any state to pass a law requiring proof of eligibility before allowing him on the ballot. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona screwed us over on that one.
In other words, instead of lobbying their respective State legislatures to tighten eligibility requirements, a notable goal, they expect the Supreme Court to parachute in and overturn two elections. It's silly.
No, what is silly is how you misstate the opinions of many here into a caricature of what they actually are. This is often referred to as the "Straw man" tactic. You state your opponents position in a ridiculous manner, then you mock it. In doing so, you are beating a "Straw man" rather than a real opponent.
Once again, if the Supreme Court had RULED that he wasn't a Natural Born citizen, and therefore ineligible to be president, he would have a hard time trying to hold on to the office.
Furthermore, no one is saying that such a solution is viable now. It needed to occur EARLY in the process, because no remedy is possible if you wait too long.
Beyond that, this discussion has long been past the point of any potential usefulness in getting rid of Obama, it is now an academic discussion concerned solely with correcting a false understanding of the meaning and purpose of Article II's "natural born citizen" clause.
If anyone expects any actual political consequences to occur as a result of this discussion, they are just espousing a futile dream.
And those people are idiots. Who are you, Katie Couric now? "Some say . . . ."
"You are failing to state your case" is not a strawman argument.
If you still wonder why the Supreme Court hasn't jumped in waving a copy of Vattel, you need only read the Constitution to discover why. There isn't any mystery as to the proper constitutional actors in the presidential selection process and the Supreme Court isn't included.
As for me, I have to wonder where all this madness will lead you in the future. If it comes down to Clinton vs. Cruz, or Clinton vs. Rubio, or Clinton vs. Haley, or Clinton vs. Jindal, will your passion for Vattel wane?
There is, of course, another possibility. Perhaps, just perhaps, by 2016 you will have narrowed your definition of "natural born citizen" to include only those candidates who have at least one brother and one father who previously served as president. Maybe sometime way back when somebody wrote something in some other language that says something like that.
Before the Supreme Court will address this issue, there first needs to be at least a few members of the legislative branch making some noise .....
Take Senator Cruz...
Most of us here agree with just about all his positions. BUT many of us conclude that he is NOT constitutionally eligible. Now, Senator Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar and since he is being considered as a candidate for president in 2016. He definitely is in the right position to render an opinion and make an impact (ie he has standing). But he is avoiding the issue.
In a recent interview, he said that this is a legal question for others to decide and he is not going to engage.
So in the absence of any legitimate person in the legislature putting the issue front and center, why would the Supreme Court of the United States take it on?
As I said in my previous reply to you, IMHO this all must begin in the legislative branch. AND Senator Cruz should be at the forefront. If we do not get leadership from him now, the only conclusion I can come to is that his political ambitions are overcoming his courage to lead. By not taking a position and avoiding the issue, he along with many others including Sarah is complicit in the ineligibility of Obummer.