Thank you for informing readers about this interesting development. However, I can't imagine this Supreme Court, or any of its predecessors, since 1937, really issuing any ruling which would be that controversial.
As we saw with many other Court rulings, they more-or-less go along with any program that will firstly enhance Federal power (over either the States or the People), and two, provide precedent for increasing government power--and lessening government responsibility--against the people on either State or Federal levels.
Even if (and it is a huge IF) the High Court rules against President Obama, he already has the statutory authority, validated by many rulings of both this Court and its predecessors, to ignore it!
Will a ruling against the President make a stir? I doubt it. Lord knows, the ruling over the 2000 election, invalidating the Florida electoral college and ceding the Presidency to Bush II didn't!
I should think that would have been more controversial than Obama being the President because of false, or even forged, papers.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions o