I am not a birther, I am a constitutionalist, and one in training I might add. I read the constitution, and understand what I read. What it says, what it means, where it came from, how it was developed, and what was used as a guide to write it. I belive that I understand what the framers of the constitution meant, and how and why it was constructed it the final form.
Since that time, those of your ilk (you did say you were an attorney, and seem well versed in laws interpretations) have subverted it outside the will of its citizens. SCOTUS, rather than render judgements based on the constitution, vote their own flavor of interpretation. Ammendments are made without the consent of the people, as a SCOTUS judge is not elected, rather appointed with approval of the Senate and House if I am not mistaken. We are not able to toss a SCOTUS judge out, because it is a job for life. I understand that a judge is a life term (no pun intended), so that his decisions when unpopular with the Congress (House and Senate) cannot be fired for said decisions. Who would have thought that they would go against the intent, words, and the people, and we have no redress.
Who would think that Senators and House Reps would cease listening to their constituents, and hide behind the letter of the law, rather than the intent, and cease protect the nation, and instead, protect a man who is secretive, and distant, and bent on his own agenda when clearly against the will of the people. When did the job stop being “of the people, for the people”, for surely it is no longer by the people.
With all your eloquence, and knowledge, in the end, you seem distant. As a jurist, you seem unconcerned. I have read, this morning your posted replies on a variety of subjects, and you seem to do what most lawyers do, you tell us what we can’t do, what we have no right to do, what we lack, and what is not possible. How sad to live a life like that. You leave one bereft of hope, of justice, of fairness.
Nobody wants to crucify Obama, 1/2 of this country did not vote for him, and its debatable that 1/2 did, when factoring election scams, voter fraud, servicemen votes not being counted, dead people voting, the list goes on and on.
What we want is for him to care enough about the people who he represents to prove who he is, perhaps he does not have to, but he should. He should unseal his school records, he should show us his long form birth certificate, and if it embarass him for something that is on it...so what...if he is legit, he is legit. We can deal with whatever is on it, whatever he is hiding, if he is legit. What he is doing is flipping us off, the left sees it and rubs it in our faces. While the pundits jeer at us, yet we do not go away, and are not going to go away. Our constitution has been subverted, and according to you and we have no redress. Perhaps I am wrong in that interpretation????
You have told us what we can’t do. Do you have the knowledge, or will, or desire to tell us what can be done?
If you say no, or nothing can be done, of the latter, you will be wrong, because you know, and I know, that in then end, there is something that can be done. Right now the fox runs the hen house, but all it takes is for something or someone bigger than the fox to change all that.
So your a lawyer, and an economist? Is that right? You see what is happening. I presume your are of a certain age because of your moniker, so... tell us...what do you think we can do?
By the way, beating up on a non-lawyer is beneath you or any jurist. I’d kick your ass in engineering, so your no better than anyone else, just a specialist in one, perhaps two fields. Here at FR more intelligent people gather than any other place in the world IMO, and we are the ones who formulate opinions based on study, not conjecture, sure there are some who are meatheads, but most want information, and this is a good place to discuss and get it. Many past 55, and some younger cannot even use the internet and believe that the MSM tells the truth, that MSNBC would not lie to us, and there was a time, that I believed it too, that was long ago. The people here read and interact, tea party groups are formed here, and people all over the country and the world congregate to share information. Even what other lawyers are doing, is in conflict with what you say, and some cases are still pending.
What say you?
"By the way, beating up on a non-lawyer is beneath you or any jurist. " First, I'm not beating anyone up, nor am I questioning anyone's intellect. If the subject matter was engineering, or probably any number of other subject, I would defer to you and/or other's professional experience and training. But, those aren't' the subject(s) - the law is the subject, and specifically the practical application of law. If you want a relevant practical legal opinion, you should seek out the advice of a practicing attorney.
"So your a lawyer, and an economist? Is that right? You see what is happening. I presume your are of a certain age because of your moniker, so... tell us...what do you think we can do?"
I'm not an economist. I have an education with an emphasis on economics, but I've never put that education to any kind of professional use. I was an active-duty JAG officer for almost 25 years. One of the reasons I retired was that I did not wish to work for one, Barack Obama.
"With all your eloquence, and knowledge, in the end, you seem distant. As a jurist, you seem unconcerned. "
I've never heard anyone characterize me as "distant", or "eloquent", for that matter. But, I believe - like many others - that law should be applied absent emotion. If that makes me sound "distant", so be it.
"When did the job stop being “of the people, for the people”, for surely it is no longer by the people."
A representative republic is not "mob" rule. We expect our legislative representatives to establish laws and regulations. We expect our judiciary to review those laws and the Executive's application of those laws for constitutional infirmities. And most importantly, we expect the individual branches of government to respect their own limitations, and the authority of their co-equal counterparts.
If the laws regarding the inspection of a presidential candidate's credentials for office eligibility are deficient, then we should expect the legislative branch to remedy those deficiencies. If they refuse, or refuse to apply existing law, then we should replace them. It's as simple as that.
The Court has established that some problems or defects cannot be remedied by the Court. That is a sound principle. This (Obama's current term) happens to be one of those "things".
I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate's claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama's current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.