I disagree. Each and every point made there still stands. Except I cannot vouch for item #3 because I don’t understand it.
It is a pure political process. Those empowered to remedy the situation have decided that the election was fair, that Obama was eligible.
Essentially, your argument is that there is a Grand Conspiracy shielding Obama from Judicial review of his eligibility.
I reject that.
Once again you dispute but do not refute.
Article III clearly states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution,
the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
A question regarding a person’s eligibility is certainly a case in Law arising under the Constitution. Article II requires no enabling legislation.
Please show specifically where “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department” (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue)” authorizes a branch other than the Judiciary to decide matters of law.
Please show specifically how there is no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” questions of eligibility. For example, what obstacles exist to prevent a determination of age?
Please explain how Article II is subordinate to “policy”