You are either very ill informed or just want to kill time.
The sec of state knew of the allegations but did not ask for birth certificate as cal did with Eldridge cleaver.
How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.
I’m tired of the topic. Read the other threads for more background. I’m not interested in being a tutor.
You believe in blind allegiance. I don’t.
“How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.”
From the viewpoint of the US Supreme Court, they have. The WKA ruling in 1898 went into great detail concerning the meaning of NBC. The specific HOLDING did not, since WKA wasn’t running for President, but the ARGUMENT is unchanged, and has never been challenged in court prior to Obama. All lower courts are already using WKA as precedent, so there is no need for the US Supreme Court to make it binding with a specific holding by accepting another case.
A ruling doesn’t need to be BINDING to be PERSUASIVE.
“Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority or advisory precedent) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent#Persuasive_precedent
As long as the lower courts are all united in being PERSUADED by WKA, the Supreme Court doesn’t need to accept a case to make it BINDING.
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi
I know how you think the system failed last time. I've heard all the complaints. What I'm trying to find out is what you want to replace it with. So (1) you want the USSC to define NBC. (Of course, as Mr Rogers points out, lower courts are acting as though they already have; and since the current Court hasn't accepted any cases, they seem to think they already have too.) And (2) you want the various Secretaries of State to ask for birth certificates from every presidential candidate. That seems like a perfectly fine idea going forward, but it doesn't get Col. Lakin off the hook this time.