On what basis is it "their job"?
There is no duly-constituted authority which has requested or required Obama to do what you want.
The Supreme Court is not a free-ranging Committee of Public Safety. It's not like the French Cour de Cassation, which (descended from the revolutionary CPS) has the very powers you want the USSC to exercise.
There is no statute, no case law, and no person with standing which requires production of documents of a President-Elect.
The guys and girls on these threads are doing incredible work and are great fighters of our freedom...they do not accept that a man with such a "Transparent" background, one which also has soooo many contacts that have been proven, yes proven, to be anti-America, should be able to usurp the Constitution.
I would invite any of these brave posters into my fighting hole during combat.
I would be willing to bet that if you and the others who think this is a non-issue were to go off and start your own thread entitled: Proof Obama is Quaified to be the POTUS, they would leave you alone and let you have constructive posts back and forth to each other. Although I would be concerned the number of posts would equal the same as a thread entitled "The World Saving Accomplishments of Pee Wee Herman."
It is, in fact, these types of quibble that get the DU lurkers and trolls into a wonderful tizzy.
I cannot put myself up on the same level as some of those on this thread who have put unimaginable thought and work into following this issue over these many months, but I feel privileged that they let me contribute where and when I can.
God Bless America, Freedom and our Constitution. I spent the majority of my adult life sworn to protect it...I'll bet a number of these folks fighting for it never had to take an oath...they love the United States of America without being asked to swear to it...
Is it your contention that a docket entry of "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [date]" indicates that the case was simply assigned a conference date rather than purposefully selected by a justice for discussion at conference?
There is no statute, no case law, and no person with standing which requires production of documents of a President-Elect.
***Buncha baloney, especially in light of the 20th amendment which takes priority over statutes because the constitution is the highest law of the land. The “no case law” thing is a red herring. There’s very little case law covering the 3rd amendment but if some army general said you had to put up his friends for a year rent free, the constitution has plenty to say about that. The lack of case law is a sign that this area of the constitution hasn’t been tested.
On what basis is it “their job”?
***Common Sense. Precedence. 20th Amendment. Congressman Billybob’s prior comments. The same basis established in Marbury v Madison. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure the lawyer dudes will fill in the blanks for you.
There is no duly-constituted authority which has requested or required Obama to do what you want.
***The duly constituted authority is the constitution. It is the highest law of the land and it states the requirements for eligibility.
The Supreme Court is not a free-ranging Committee of Public Safety.
***And a big giant “so what” to that. There’s a lot of things the SCOTUS is not.
It’s not like the French Cour de Cassation, which (descended from the revolutionary CPS) has the very powers you want the USSC to exercise.
***Lawyer dude weigh-in time, since I don’t know what you’re talking about.
That may all be true, but it's also true that no law or regulation prohibits someone from having the state release a certified *paper* copy of either their Certificate of Live Birth or their Certification of Live Birth to interested third parties.
It would shut us all up, for about $12. So why has he chosen not to do so?
Computer images released to friendly media types don't exactly indicate "transparency".