Lawsuits Poll

“Many are called, but few are chosen,” so the saying goes, and many lawsuits have been filed around the issue of how presidential candidates are vetted and whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional requiremens for the US presidency.

Do you think anything will come out of this issue? Courts might hear a case about candidate eligibility for the next election, but do you think any court will decide the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president now? Here’s a chance for you to express your opinion.

What do YOU think?

Will any court decide Obama's eligibility before the end of his term?

  • No (85%, 202 Votes)
  • Yes (15%, 36 Votes)

Total Voters: 238

Loading ... Loading ...

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Polls. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Lawsuits Poll

  1. NBC says:

    Courts will not rule on the issue:

    1. Plaintiffs will continue to lack standing
    2. Issues are not resolvable by the Courts: Lack of remedies
    3. Congress has certified elections and qualified the President
    4. President was duly sworn in

    Even if the President were a de facto’ president his act(ion)s are still legally binding, and cannot be challenged as part of an incidental legal principle. This means that for instance, complaints about Obama issuing illegal orders cannot be argued on court as a valid defense. Nor can claims that Obama’s signed acts lack enforcability be argued in hearings were people violate such acts.

    Interesting how the only remedy is through the electorate who elects the President and Congress.

    Read more about the de facto officer doctrine. I am looking forward to hear others comment on this issue.

  2. Loren says:

    While I fully expect the cases to continue being resolved through Motions to Dismiss, part me of wishes that a judge might address the merits or likelihood of success, as was done in dismissing a McCain citizenship case.

    They might avoid doing this in the born-in-Kenya cases, simply because doing so would require addressing ‘disputed’ facts instead of pure law. But in the Wrotnowski and Donofrio-esque cases, where the facts are all stipulated and the question is just a matter of law, the judge could mention eligibility while still dismissing on standing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.