Would your remarks establish that you do not believe in American Victory? Whose victory would you prefer? I am not aware of any opportunity that I had in 2006 and do not believe that there was any. I did exercise my vote against this fraud in 2008, even though the alternative was not one I would have preferred. Electors are not required to examine the eligibility of a candidate certified as Obama was and were not empowered to do so at the time. As to members of Congress: several have remarked that they have a question about the issue and now their number has been increased. I expect that trend to continue.
As to my own credentials: I did once, as lead counsel, win cert in a case that is somewhat of a precursor of the present situation. It involved the late Edward Kennedy and after we won cert his machine, which was not unlike the Ci-cago machine behind the incompetent now occupying the Oval Office managed to rig the system in ways not all of which were legal and a good deal of which were not above board. I believe we are once again engaged in a contest to see if a man who has aggregated power to himself and is surrounded by toadies and lickspittles of the mainstream media, so-called, is above the rule of law.
I agree that Lt. Col. Lakin does not have a chance of success and a very good attorney I know so advised him before he went forward. But then, as was once pointed out in a book of that name, the military justice system is to justice as military music is to music. It can be good but often is not. It is not completely clear in the civil justice system that the ineligibility issue will go unexamined, and, if it does, and the intent of the Framers is examined along with the 19th century comments by the judiical giants who mentioned the issue, then the constitutional rule of law may yet be preserved. On the other hand it may be historically established that our judiciary decided he was above the law but I believe if that does happen that the verdict of history itself will not so easily let him off the hook.
I don’t think that either the politicians or the judiciary care much about this issue, either in the abstract or in the particulars of the Obama situation. Certainly politicians are not going to voluntarily accept any limitations on what their particular class can do. The people will have to do that and they will have to do it without using the courts as a crutch. Voters can force their legislators and/or state officials to demand proof of eligibility as a condition of a listing on the ballot for both primary and general elections. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of a ground swell to do that.
Absent that, someone who is a viable Presidential candidate will have to raise a challenge before an election is held.
I don’t like being called a troll and am more that happy to take on anyone who has recklessly slung such a slander in my direction. As to the Scalia comment, you may recall that I simply agreed with what Scalia had said regarding the point of natural birth. My point of agreement can be found here:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/justice-scalia-natural-born-requiring-jus-soli/
I have not expressed any opinion about what others in the 19th Century or any other time may have had to say.
There have been three opportunities to resolve this issue: Arthur, Agnew, Obama. Hasn’t happened yet, has it.