[nathanbedford]

Why do you think the court has not yet touched this matter and why do you think the court will not touch the matter but declare it a political question?

Because the Supreme Court knows it does not have the physical power to order the president to do anything. How many divisions does SCOTUS have?

The Supreme Court entered orders over the forced removal of the Cherokees along the trail of tears but President Jackson simply ignored their orders and did as he pleased. I'm old enough to remember that there was some doubt whether President Eisenhower would enforce the Supreme Court's orders respecting the integration of the schools in Arkansas.

The Supreme Court is painfully aware that ultimately its power is only as strong as the disposition of the people, the elected officials, and the Armed Forces to follow the court.

If the Supreme Court were to send federal marshals to the White House they would never get past the Secret Service or the Marine standing guard outside the Oval Office. The Supreme Court will not open itself to issuing unenforceable orders. It is not going to go verging into grave questions of state which they cannot control and might even lead to civil war

Moreover, there is ample legal precedent for the Supreme Court to take this position and quite properly so. After all, the matter could have been handled by the political parties themselves, by the secretaries of state of the individual states which certified candidates or ballots, or when they certified the election results, or by the political party in convention, or by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the only venue for resolving disputes in America and it is not the venue for deciding "political" questions at all.

Make no mistake, I am as troubled by you are by Obama's inexplicable refusal to produce his birth certificate. Common sense tells me that there is only one explanation for this. However, I do not see much hope of any successful legal maneuver this administration and none whatsoever unless Republicans can take the Congress in 2010 in that body.

Our best hope is to set up a control process which bars the mountebank from reelection.Meanwhile, we should continue every legal challenge possible-I could be wrong-and beat the drum ceaselessly.

[EternalVigilance]

Who knew that the Court was such a paper tiger?

Maybe someone should have told all the Republican chief executives who over the last decade have been kowtowing to each and every unconstitutional opinion of the courts.

[TheCipher]

Interesting. But if the SC did decide he was ineligible, don't you think that would make him powerless as far as legislation goes ? If he signed a law, someone could bring a suit saying the law was unconstitutional because he signed it and SCOTUS would have to agree.

[brewcrew]

I’m just sayin’ that’s how it SHOULD work - all in theory, of course.

[TheCipher]

Also, this goes with my post above, you did ask :

How many divisions does SCOTUS have?

All of them. Because part of legislation that O would have to sign would be the budget. If no budget gets passed, no funding for the military, which means the troops don't get paid. And when the troops don't get paid ......

[sam_paine]

Well said General Forrest!

The Electorate, the Electoral College, Congress etc...millions of opportunities to thwart this Marxist fool.

Why should we expect 9 judges to save us from ourselves.

[El Gato]

If the Supreme Court were to send federal marshals to the White House they would never get past the Secret Service or the Marine standing guard outside the Oval Office.

Assuming that they would continue to stand there if the Court ruled that the occupant in that office was not eligible to be there. The Secret Service is sworn to protect The President, and the Marine is likewise obligated to follow legals orders only, and is likewise obligated to protect The President. If the person in the Oval Office is only the occupant, and not the President, why would they protect him/her? They might even aide in tossing him/her out, so that the real President, whoever that might be, can take his lawful place.

It's all unknown territory.

But I don't think they would order federal marshals, who are part of the executive branch anyway, to remove an ineligible person. They would just rule on that eligibility. At least unless or until asked, they likely would not even order him to vacate the office.

< But, as the Court has said, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the time it is passed, not just after being declared so. Similarly, a person ruled ineligible to the office, can never have actually held it or legitimately exercised any of its powers.

Moreover, there is ample legal precedent for the Supreme Court to take this position and quite properly so. After all, the matter could have been handled by the political parties themselves, by the secretaries of state of the individual states which certified candidates or ballots, or when they certified the election results, or by the political party in convention, or by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the only venue for resolving disputes in America and it is not the venue for deciding "political" questions at all.

Just because all those other folks did not exercise their "due diligence" doesn't mean that the Court should not enforce the Constitution, or rule on a particular case or controversy arising under the Constitution. Besides none of those folks even examined the eligibility of the candidates or the electee. (Except perhaps for the parties who nominated him, who declared him eligible to various State officials).

In the end, it is not a "political question", involving some policy matter, but rather it is a Constitutional question of the first magnitude.

[reasonisfaith]

The Supreme Court has a power potentially greater than physical power—that of bringing facts to light.

It would really help if more Americans were to become aware of the facts here. Right now most base their opinions on rumor and innuendo established by the media. A Supreme Court ruling would fix the problem. It’s far better to have a few riots sparked by the light of truth than a slow asphyxiation in a sea of lies.

Right now the Supreme Court appears to be running from the truth.

[Big_Monkey]

"Our best hope is to set up a control process which bars the mountebank from reelection.

I think your post is one of the best reasoned arguments I've seen or heard on this subject.

Whatever the case may be, it's too late now to do anything about this term. I'm a firm believer that impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate is the only way to remove a sitting President, regardless of what the extenuating circumstances may or may not be. The time to fix this was before January 20th.

But, I also believe the steps several states have taken are absolutely correct and justified. A state has a duty and an obligation to verify the eligibility of the candidates it allows on it's ballots. Sadly, not a single state took this very seriously last year, and now were in the predicament that we're in.