I have to take issue with your assessment. The case of Gore v Bush dealt with the interpretation of “hanging chads” and voter intent. It was a very “grey” area and a very narrow interpretation.
This on the other hand is a very clear issue. Either Barack Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or he isn’t.. There is no grey area. The Constitution is very clear on who may hold the office, it is NOT open to interpretation.
As for the timeliness of the case, this has been in the courts (Federal) for months. The Obama campaign dragged their feet by filing motions to dismiss, and then filing a motion to deny standing to Berg as he was not an “injured party.” There were also multiple defendants: The FEC; the Democratic Party; and Barrack Obama. Each entity filed answers to the brief, filed for motions to dismiss and basically stalled the case.
The Judge (wisely) passed this on ruling that although Berg had “no Standing” he didn’t rule on the merits of the case letting Berg take it directly to the SCOTUS.
I surmise this was the strategy of the Dems all along, stall the case until after the election, then there would be such a public uproar that the Supremes wouldn’t rule to save the Republic. In Souters stay on the injuncion, he again didn’t rule on the merits of the case, simply ruled the election could go forth and the case could be decided at a later date.
There is a “remedy” in the language of the Constitution that provides for the replacement of the President should it be determined he’s not eligible to serve. I think Souter thought that the remedy would safe-guard the electoral process to the point there would be no immediate crisis that would require a stay on the election.
The long and the short of it is quite simple. If Barack is not a “natural-born” citizen of the United States, he is not qualified to hold the office.
The biggest issue is who has standing? I submit that individually and collectively, the citizens of the United States have standing. It is conferred in the first three words of the Preamble of the Constitution, “We the people...” The entire concept of our Republic is predicated on the people’s “consent to be governed” We did not sign over our rights to a governmental body. We ELECT our leaders on a regular basis to self-govern. There is a process for election and there is also a process for removal of ANY elected official. The only one’s not directly elected are the Judiciary and this was designed to allow the Judiciary to make decisions independant of outside influence.
I think it is a very simple matter. A lawsuit has been filed questioning the ability of a person to hold the office of President because he doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements for the job. In order to satisfy those requiremehnts, he only has to produce a birth certificate that states he is a “natural-born” citizen of the US. There are no legal hoops he has to go through, no long arguments, no parsing of the intent and meaning of the Constitution. It is simple and black and white. He either IS eligible or he Isn’t.
If the SCOTUS allows something as simple as this to pass, there would be total anarchy in the Country. How can anyone be expected to obey the law when something this simple is cast aside.
I agree with you... but. I am thinking in pragmatic terms. We HAVE to fight for this... but still, never underestimate the BS artistry of the liberal justices.
I agree with you 100%. If he is found to be NOT a natural born citizen, or otherwise ineligible due to citizenship issues, and still allowed to be president, the entire Constitution now means absolutely nothing.