[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?

[Mr Rogers]

Ah...so you want a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the NBC clause.

“The 2008 electors knew full well they were sending a foreign born elect to the White House. “

Bullshit! They had no reason to believe Obama didn’t meet the Constitutional requirement of NBC. Nor is there any evidence of it now. No evidence he’s foreign born, and none that the Founders wanted a requirement for the President to be “born of citizen parents” - 4 words they COULD have written, but did not.