[Las Vegas Ron]

For separation of powers reasons, courts are not going to get involved in a challenge to the qualifications of a sitting President.

I can see where that could cause huge problems, is this why courts have been refusing to here cases based on standing, is that their way to wiggle out of it?

Every state has procedures on the books for challenging a candidate's right to be on the ballot. Those challenges have to be brought before the election and, in most states, can only be brought by an opposing candidate

I can definitely see that becoming an issue if nobamma decides to seek re election, I'm surely losing hope that this will be resolved in the courts.

But if it turns out that Obama was indeed a fraudulent POTUS, wouldn't that nullify every law he signed while in office?

Seems to me that would cause more of a crisis then just booting his butt out now.

[Lurking Libertarian]

But if it turns out that Obama was indeed a fraudulent POTUS, wouldn't that nullify every law he signed while in office?

Probably not, under something called the "de facto officer doctrine."

[rxsid]

Let's not forget that (at least) 1 lawsuit was filed prior to the DNC convention (let alone the election). Then, after he was only President-elect and prior to the E.C. votes were cast or counted in Congress...multiple lawsuits were filed againts him.

IMO, the reason this wasn't touched in 2008 or 2009 comes down to the touchy subject of race. It's not about the subject matter at hand. It's about the color of his skin and this country's history re: that.

NOBODY was going to "deny" the first "black" president (even though he's more white and arabic than black). Especially when he enjoyed high "approval" ratings. No way, no how.

Remember though, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be brought down by the cover-up.

So, who knows now that his poll numbers are in the toilet and the Tea Partier's are starting to affect Congressional races.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

“I can see where that could cause huge problems, is this why courts have been refusing to here cases based on standing, is that their way to wiggle out of it?”

No. The easiest way to explain this is that before a case can be filed, a certain check list has to be met with the court.

Generally speaking, the first issue would be jurisdiction. Does the court have the authority to hear the case?

The second issue would be standing. Does the plaintiff have the right to bring the case?

The political question doctrine would generally not really matter until after those issues are resolved.

Judges in the birther cases have addressed all issues in their decisions. Judge Carter in California for instance pointed out that the District Court there did not have jurisdiction over a quo warranto proceeding. He further explained that all the defendants with the possible exception of Keyes could never have standing. Keyes could have standing under the right circumstances. But since it was after an election, it would be a political question best left to Congress.

Now, I have to go on lunch break at Soros, Inc. We have a great cafeteria.

[little jeremiah]

I think any people in positions that could do something are either 0bama supporters (getting thinner day by day) or spineless selfservers that don’t want the attendant personal discomfort and inconvenience that trying to do something about a usurper in the White House would bring them.

Gutless. So many all together. If several banded together and supported each other, something could happen. But no, legalese, “social issues”, precedent minutiae (and ignoring any precedent that would support getting his *** out of the WH), fear of the media, fear of this, fear of that - they’re paralyzed.