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.
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.