[noinfringers2]

In my experience with law, codification cannot nullify the law. In this case the law is the words of the Constitution which explicitly demands a “natural born citizen’.
My understanding is that the SCOUSA has never specifically heard arguments on eligibility because of the standing issue. It could well be that justices in their own privy do not agree with doubts as to eligibility.
A’citizen of the USA’ is not,at least by wording, identical to a’natural born citizen of the USA. , and
I have references to prominent judges and office holders since mid 1800s who have made distinction for natural born citizen being of place and parents. I’ll check as to court opinions.
AS to the Chief Justice of USASC being infallible in administering the oath, I was appalled that the oath was made twice because of error during the first; which error it seems to me should have been publicly corrected and not in a private ceremony. My scepticism of judges does not agree with your trust in them.

[jamese777]

In my experience with law, codification cannot nullify the law. In this case the law is the words of the Constitution which explicitly demands a “natural born citizen’.
My understanding is that the SCOUSA has never specifically heard arguments on eligibility because of the standing issue. It could well be that justices in their own privy do not agree with doubts as to eligibility.
A’citizen of the USA’ is not,at least by wording, identical to a’natural born citizen of the USA. , and
I have references to prominent judges and office holders since mid 1800s who have made distinction for natural born citizen being of place and parents. I’ll check as to court opinions.
AS to the Chief Justice of USASC being infallible in administering the oath, I was appalled that the oath was made twice because of error during the first; which error it seems to me should have been publicly corrected and not in a private ceremony. My scepticism of judges does not agree with your trust in them.

---

The current Justices of the Supreme Court do not appear to agree with you. It only takes four justices to agree to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and in 3 years of trying no appeal challenging Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen has been granted cert. Two such attempts were rejected this month: Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro.
You can have all the skepticism you want. It doesn’t alter the record or the facts.
There are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court. The highest Court can hear any case that four justices (the rule of four) agree raises serious constitutional issues.
Since the Supreme Court has not commented on why they have refused to hear any Obama eligibility appeal, we will never know whether agreement with a lower court’s ruling on standing was the reason for their denial of certiorari or not.
Furthermore, there are no issues of standing in a grand jury investigation of Obama’s eligibilty and no one has convened a grand jury to look into his eligibility.