It seems to me that both extremes are wrong. No, Judge Carter can’t just remove a sitting president because some people—quite a lot of people, in fact—think that he is guilty of criminal fraud and never was constitutionally qualified to be President.
But, yes, Judge Carter has the right, it seems to me, to examine the evidence before him and, if the evidence is persuasive enough, to demand that Obama should prove that he is a Natural Born citizen. Was he born in Hawaii or not? Which hospital? He has never actually produced any evidence as to his birth, since the online COLB is a forgery AND he has never explicitly said that it is his COLB. Someone else put it out there, not Obama.
Ultimately, it would be for SCOTUS to resolve the question. But I see no reason why Judge Carter should not have acted—other than tremendous pressure on him not to.
Indeed, he should have acted. Although he does not have the authority to oust a sitting "president", he could find that the occupier of the White House failed to prove his bono fides and demand that they be produced.
There are only a few moves at that point for Team 0bama (Obama, Fvck Ya!):
Put up or
Show their contempt of court or
I don't think they can put up.
Contempt of court? Dunno, I think he has some immunity as long as he is in office.
An appeal would garner more daylight than the cockroaches can tolerate. Besides, it might actually get to the Supreme Court.
Carter should have 'kicked it upstairs', IMHO
Spot on!! Why didn’t the Judge demand to examine the ‘EVIDENCE”??? Lots of questions here. CO