I do agree that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on what the specifics of natural born actually are, although lower courts have made some rulings.
I don't know when this will reach the Supreme Court, or if the will actually rule on what definitively is natural born.
Even if they do, the issue of Hawaii's position that Obama is and was eligible, raises the issue of should states have the exact same eligibility requirements, etc.
I think the states that pass their own eligibility requirements, and are unwilling to recognize other states is a more important issue going forward.
This is not a state's rights issue, and can't be simply because it is a federal election.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on what the specifics of natural born actually are, although lower courts have made some rulings.
I don't know when this will reach the Supreme Court, or if the will actually rule on what definitively is natural born.
Even if they do, the issue of Hawaii's position that Obama is and was eligible, raises the issue of should states have the exact same eligibility requirements, etc.
I think the states that pass their own eligibility requirements, and are unwilling to recognize other states is a more important issue going forward.
This is not a state's rights issue, and can't be simply because it is a federal election.
Quote from jem:
I guess you missed the part in grade school where they told you the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution...
Read the seminal US. Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison where they explain their power... some would say cease their power... (you can see a writeup in Wikipedia).
The Supreme court has not ruled on the definition of Natural Born citizen. Until they do... obamaloons can write whatever useless crap they wish. Minority opinions in overruled cases are not Supreme Court decisions (clear now? perry mason. )
If you are going to post about the law... be accurate.