No you dream on but keep those cute cartoons coming. Do you have an O screen saver?
I see you have no clue about Anderson.
Anderson filed an amicus curiae brief, asking the Supreme Court to hear Berg's case. The Supreme Court granted him permission to file his brief (an amicus, not being a party to the case, needs the Court's permission to file a brief). Once Anderson'rs brief was filed, the Court refused to hear Berg's case. So Anderson's brief had, and has, no legal effect.
I thought that the Anderson amicus was connected with the Berg case which was shunted back to a lower court, not denied outright. Am I right or wrong?
I agree with p-marlowe on this one. It’s over so far as the challenge to Obama’s citizenship is concerned.
First, the Constitution does not provide a process or a responsible office or agency for pre-certifying a candidate’s citizenship. It’s simply not there. I’ve looked over and over, but it’s not there. I assume that meant that it was left up to the electors in the EC to make that call or to the voters in the actual election.
Second, Marlowe is right that Obama is duly elected, sworn in, and sitting as the 44th POTUS. Since he owns the House and Senate, you couldn’t remove him with an atomic blast. He’s there to stay until the next election cycle. If you honestly think a Democratic House is going to bring articles of impeachment against a sitting US President, and that a Democrat Senate is going to convict, then I say you’re in a dreamworld. I can’t imagine too many of them secretly hoping for Biden to be POTUS.