Replies

It obviously applies to anyone familiar with how the law works.

I am familiar with the law, and the public has not acquiesced to Obama being eligible and it is not a procedural error but an error of substance and Constitutionality thus those basic principles deny the applicability of the doctrine. It is also not a procedural error of the court where nunc pro tunc could apply. Are you going to reward fraud upon this Nation by acquiescing to his acts as an usurper? Where is the law and equity? So someone steals millions by way of fraudulently acting when not eligible to act, according to you, you let them keep the ill gotten gains? I think not.

Actually, the public has accepted the results of a democratic election, in which the life story of the winner, in terms of both parental origin and stated place of birth, were public knowledge. It's a devoted minority that clings to this stuff. It's a far tinier minority that doesn't accept the fact of Obama as president, whether they want him to be or not.

The reason people don't get worked up about these paeans to the Constitutional issue is simple. The facts as they currently lay make it clear to reasonable people that Obama was born in Hawaii. Further, the two-parent NBC stuff is a stillborn fantasy.

Now, if it could actually be proven that Obama was born outside the United States, then maybe you've got something. Maybe the specifics would yield a ruling that Obama is ineligible. But the specifics of that borderline incredible event itself are unlikely to support departure from the de facto officer doctrine.