The idea that a judge is going to declare Obama ineligible to be holding the office of President seems pretty far-fetched. In any case, I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify. The Republicans in Congress immediately groveled when one or two black Congressmen made lying allegations of racism against the tea partiers--they aren't going to stand up to the Democrats over this.
I cannot see how legislation passed by Congress signed into law can change the meaning of the US Constitution.
Defeatist.
“I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify.”
Not quite. No law or statute can change the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is no easy feat.
“Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
“To propose an Amendment:
“•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
“•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
“To Ratify Amendments:
“•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
“•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once — to ratify the 21st Amendment — repealing Prohibition.
“The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a “reasonable time” might extend.
“Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
Arthur may have had cover provided by a journalist, Hinman, who kept the public busy with rumors and a book suggesting that Chester had been born in Northern Ireland.
Arthur's only supreme court apointment, justice Horace Gray, may have known and wrote a naunced, and perhaps intentionally obtuse decision which suggested that there was uncertainty about natural born citizenship, while he referred to Minor v. Happersett, in which the Vattel definition is crystal clear. A careful reading of Wng Kim suggests that Gray clarified the fact that native and natural born citizenship are different. Wong Kim was determined to be a native (jus soli, born on the soil) and not a natural born citizen. But Obama obfuscators use Wong Kim as their authority that native and natural born cititzeship are equivalent. There was really no evidence that Chester Arthur was born in Ireland, but the question effectively silenced the more subtle question of his minister father's naturalization.
Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.
I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..
Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)
Chester's father's naturalization certificate was recently found. It shows him being naturalized when Arthur was about 14 years old. Arthur was not eligible.
I think Congress would just quickly pass a law changing the rules so that Obama would qualify..
Even if a mere statute could do that, which it can not, it would not help The One. Because making it retroactive would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids Congress to pass. (Article I section 9, 3rd paragraph)