We DO NOT want this to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court and I will tell you why. I have long been a gun rights supporter and for years we watched as unconstitutional measure after unconstitutional measure was enacted into law against the rights of citizens and gun owners.
For years we heard the liberal spin that the second amendment only authorizes the states to have militias and does not justify an individual right of firearms ownership and possession. The NRA and various other entities were very concerned about allowing a case to go forward in a liberal court, because if it was decided against them, it would serve as precedent to make other decisions go against them. It was thought at the time that a case should only go forward when we knew for sure that we would have a judge that would interpret the law correctly, and this was not readily apparent for cases brought in Liberal strongholds.
The Gun Rights lobby bided it's time until public sentiments shifted away from the Liberal viewpoint of the second amendment, and they eventually got a court that would uphold the CORRECT interpretation of the Second Amendment. McDonald v Chicago was the landmark case which completely overturned all liberal attempts to ban or restrict gun ownership.
What has that got to do with the eligibility case? It is my opinion that many lawyers suffer from a misconception of what is the meaning of "natural born citizen" because so many people have wrongly been told that being "born a citizen" is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen." Most lawyers and most courts are likely to operate on this premise, and before I would want to take a case before such courts I would want to make efforts to educate them on the correct meaning.
It is too easy for a judge to dismiss a piece of evidence without scrutinizing it and pondering it sufficiently. That is easy to do, and therefore I suspect it is likely. This issue needs TIME for people to comprehend properly. It has to sink in, because their natural gut reaction is going to be to reject it and go the easy route.
I think if this goes to the Supreme Court right now, they will reinforce the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Some years back they revisited the Roe v Wade ruling and declared it Stare Decisis (Which means "how dare you question our previous judgement?" ) They did not have a reasonable legal theory for supporting Roe v Wade, they simply did it because it would be too disruptive if it were overturned.
Just how do you think they are going to feel about declaring the first "Black" President invalid?
Again, we REALLY DO NOT WANT this to go before the Supreme Court. If we fight this out in individual state courts as an ineligible ballot issue, we will win. If we get this into a Federal Court faced with Federal responsibility, I suspect we will likely lose.
After the battlefield has been sufficiently softened by our use of State courts as our artillery, THEN it might be ripe for moving into Federal court.
Ginsburg has given an indication she would go against Wong Kim Ark as it pertains to a person born in another country of two citizen parents .
It applies to her grandson and she always considered that he could run for President.
Obama, Homeland Security Chertoff and the Senate agree with the TWO US PARENT definition. Thomas said the SCOTUS was "evading" the issue. To me, that says they know something smells.
This is not about race, it is about upholding the constitution...as clearly interpreted, IMO, in MvH and affirmed in WKA. If properly briefed and argued in the lower courts, five judges will declare Obama NOT NBC...unless he resorts to the “Bastard Protocol” as a defense (claiming his parents marriage was bigamous).
IMO it is not just the accident of Barry's birth that will be at issue, but forgery of his WH BCs and conscious lying about where he was born...IMO that would be Kenya!
I thought Bill Clinton was the first "black" President.