[Mr Rogers]

In post 195 you wrote:

“Once that decision is made, We the People would then have the ability to decide for ourselves. After all, we are the ultimate arbiters. What we say goes, and there is nothing anyone can do to take this right away from us. If we say de Vattel is the correct interpretation, it is the correct interpretation.”

NOW, in 216 you write:

“The United States does not live via Mob Rule. Laws have been enacted to protect the Republic. Ignorance to the law, or disregard of it as a matter of convenience or “Hope and Change”, does not excuse the infractions of these laws.”

So - which is it? As a matter of law, I think the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case in Dec 2008 because they thought it frivolous. I wish they had instead taken it and ruled - I think they could have done the decision in about an hour.

As a matter of what the people want - Obama advertised the fact that his father was Kenyan, and that he was raised without him. The people knew, and they voted for him anyway. Why? I don’t know. I sometimes think Obama is God’s judgment on a nation that increasingly rejects Him.

[devattel]

Mr Rogers said:

So - which is it? As a matter of law, I think the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case in Dec 2008 because they thought it frivolous. I wish they had instead taken it and ruled - I think they could have done the decision in about an hour.

It is clear based on your statements you do not understand what an arbiter is. An arbiter is a one who has the power to judge. One cannot be an arbiter unless judgement is requested. Arbiting is based on a formal judicial process.

Voting in elections does not rewrite the law nor is a judicial process. The 2008 electors knew full well they were sending a foreign born elect to the White House. There is simply no excuse for their actions. These electors and Congress must be judged for their actions in violation of the Constitution. This is the process for clarifying the law, not the election process.

There is a distinct difference between de-facto law and formal law. If We the People do not like the law, we demand it to be amended using the system that is there to serve us. We decide what is best, not the government. However, voting for an illegal president is NOT the solution to ratifying de-facto law nor is it a declaratory judgement in favor of one interpretation over another. It is akin to the Supreme Court declaring what is called "bench legislation". We do not change the law by simply ignoring it through Mob Rule.

Do you now see the distinction between Mob Rule and judicial arbiting?