Replies

You were asking ...

So then we birthers are doing the right thing for everybody's assurance by pressing this issue into every court venue all the way up to the Supreme Court. Isn't that right???

Again the two parts... (1) the birth certificate issue, and (2) the natural born status...

I think that all candidates should show their birth certificates, but I also know you're not going to get a court to require that any candidate do this, because it's not legally required for any candidate to show their birth certificate.

And therefore I would advise all FReepers to work for the state law which makes it mandatory for all candidates to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot.

So, there's that one part, with the birth certificate issue.

On the other part, (2) the natural born status, there should be some court case started in which that natural born status of a candidate would be argued and in which it would be heard by the Supreme Court. It needs to be a solid case without precedural errors, with the proper standing (whatever is required) and framed as a Constitutional issue in order to clear up the legal questions that both sides of the issue are arguing.

Now, either it can be constructed that way or it can't. I don't know. But, if it can be constructed as a good court case and make its way up the courts and finally be presented to the Supreme Court -- we still don't know if the Supreme Court will hear it.

I would hope they would, because I think it's a tremendous waste of energy and time for everyone to be arguing about it, when it could be settled once and for all with a Supreme Court decision.

Bottom line... just "get the court case" going that is solid... and follow it... and that's all that anyone has to do, simply report on the progress of the court case.

So, that's concerning the natural born status issue.

Oh and BTW -- the Constitution, which includes Article II, is "the highest law of the land" -- not a Supreme Court decision.

It's the law of the land, except when two opposing legal sides have different takes on what it says... :-)

And then, that's where you get the Supreme Court to come in and weigh in on it and settle it as far as which side has the right take on it -- if either one does and they may not. The Supreme Court may come up with something completely different that the wording of the law in the Constitution means.

And then, what the Supreme Court says about it -- then sticks and that's "it" for that issue.

The only other way that can be changed would be if the people come up with a Constitutional Amendment which would overturn what the Supreme Court said (and that can be done, too...).