Replies

An Act Of Congress signed into law by a President or becoming law over a veto is deemed to be in accordance with the Constitution unless and until it is ruled unconstitutional.

For example, from a ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility:
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny v Daniels, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
That legal challenge went to the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and both courts refused to review the lower court’s ruling.

An Act Of Congress signed into law by a President or becoming law over a veto is deemed to be in accordance with the Constitution unless and until it is ruled unconstitutional.

Ah, so you would argue that the Congress could pass a law instituting Catholicism or Islam or Hinduism as the national religion and it would be deemed to be in accordance with the Constitution until the courts declared it wasn't? (This despite the clear prohibition thereof in the first amendment.) Preposterous.

For example, from a ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility

Oh, that's a good one!
Let's cite something that could conceivably indict multiple congresses, multiple judges, and the military as if they didn't have some interest in covering it up after the deed was done!

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny v Daniels, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
That legal challenge went to the Georgia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and both courts refused to review the lower court’s ruling.

Why should I care what a court says that the Constitution or law says? It's clear that they're more than willing to ignore both to suit their political ends. (See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Roberts's BS.)