[STE=Q]

Our arguments show that, particularly because we have shown that by the holding of the Supreme Court and the facts that the defendant Soetoro has stated throughout his political career, that his father was not a citizen, his status as a “natural born citizen” is “in doubt.” At the very least, when the Supreme Court has held that an issue is “in doubt,” seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law.

I am not an attorney, but if it is so that: "the Supreme Court has held that an issue is 'in doubt,' seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law" why is it so hard for the court to render some sort of clarification, in the matter of what constitutes a Natural born Citizen, as regards Obama?

I understand the delicacy that must be exercised in such a rendering but, be that as it may, if the court can't clarify this matter, what authoritative body can?

STE=Q

[rxsid]

"why is it so hard for the court to render some sort of clarification, in the matter of what constitutes a Natural born Citizen, as regards Obama?"

IMO, fear ... or judges who put party politics above the Constitution. Some of that "fear" may be subsiding now though.

And yeah...if the courts don't have jurisdiction, nor the willingness, to interpret a Constitutional requirement...then who does? I mean, isn't that what the courts do...interpret the Constitution and subsequent laws under it? Sheesh.