Replies

The SC gave themselves the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Congress has not taken that right away from them.

However in the specific instance of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, the Supreme Court has already refused to get involved in any of eight previous appeals: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz. The Justices also refused to intercede in the $20,000 in sanctions imposed on Orly Taitz in Rhodes v MacDonald. Ms. Taitz specifically asked Justices Thomas and Alito to stay her sanctions, they refused, as did the Court.

It appears that a majority of the Court agree with the opinion of US District Court Judge David O. Carter who stated in his opinion on an Obama eligibility lawsuit:
“There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al.” October 29, 2009