I should be heading to church soon so I’ll make this quick.
The connection to the Michael New case made in the response to Lakin’s request for witnesses and documents, IIRC, is that the issue of Obama’s Constitutional ability to exercise the presidential powers to act as CIC is a POLITICAL question. A question is political, in judicial terms, if it has been specifically designated to another branch of government to resolve.
In the case of Michael New that is a fair argument to make.
In the case of Lt Col Lakin it can only be made if one points to exactly where in the Constitution the job of determining whether the President elect (already certified as the electoral winner by Congress) has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th.
I have challenged anybody to show me the words where that duty was given to anybody besides the judicial branch which is to decide all cases arising out of the Constitution or laws.
I challenge you to the same. Give me the words from the Constitution or - preferably - the 20th Amendment itself - which gives that job to somebody besides the judiciary.
The book Bushpilot1 has shown us talks about implied responsibilities and authority by virtue of the job description. It says that specific responsibilities don’t have to be spelled out - that they are in fact redundant when they are spelled out in addition to the general job description which applies. We have this idea that if the Constitution doesn’t say who determines whether a President is eligible, then nobody can do it. This document bushpilot1 has posted says that’s nuts. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and Constitution and apply them to specific cases.
Nowhere has Congress or anybody else been given the authority to do just that, even though Congress has been given the authority to determine eligibility issues for itself. If they were to be given authority to judge eligibility for the executive branch, that is the place it would have been done, and it wasn’t. Something to do with the separation of powers and checks and balances, I think. The judiciary is the only body which can interpret what “natural born US citizen” means.
I agree with you on this point, and I'm pleased to have been finally able to find something. I am unaware of any case where they have written an opinion that is directly related to the question of Presidential eligibility. That would require a challenge to a particular candidate and would probably have to be brought by a competitor. I don't think that we mere voters would be allowed to bring a suit.
I also think that the matter is moot in the case of the current President. Therefore, he will remain the legitimate President until the next election save an impeachment trial and conviction by the U.S. Senate. I would think that an opponent in the 2012 election could bring suit, but I doubt that will happen. The politicians don't want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole and the Judiciary won't get anywhere near it unless they are forced into a corner.
However distasteful that may be for you, its the most likely outcome. Like you said, its a political issue and politics is a nasty business.