[GizmosAndGadgets]

Don't like my answer? Take it up with Chief Justice John Roberts. He seemed to have no objection towards personally administering the Oath of Office.

Imagine this:

• You sold your car to a buyer who paid you with a fake Cashier's check;
• You deposit the check and everything seems ok, so you hand-over the keys and the title;
• A month later, you bank notifies you that the Cashier's check was fake, so you have now lost both the money and the car;

Should the fraudulent buyer get to keep your car just because you accepted the payment? Not a chance! Instead, you are likely going to seek the power of the court to restore what was taken from you by deceit.

Voters accepted Barack Obama's qualifications, as did Chief Justice Roberts, because no concrete evidence of the fraud had been presented in a manner sufficient to change their actions. Now, citizens are seeking to have the power of the court fix this mistake.

[thecodont]

Voters accepted Barack Obama's qualifications, as did Chief Justice Roberts, because no concrete evidence of the fraud had been presented in a manner sufficient to change their actions. Now, citizens are seeking to have the power of the court fix this mistake.

I believe that a serious jurist would want the case to be so completely solid that it would answer all similar and pending challenges of Constitutional eligibility.

[SeattleBruce]

Voters accepted Barack Obama’s qualifications, as did Chief Justice Roberts, because no concrete evidence of the fraud had been presented in a manner sufficient to change their actions. Now, citizens are seeking to have the power of the court fix this mistake.
++++++++++++++

Exactly - the courts exist in part, for redress of grievances - this would just be the most massive redress ever.