Any judge with an ounce of fidelity to his oath would and should discover the truth about Obama and his qualifications since no other law must be satisfied before the supreme law, the constitution. Should any judge discover a violation or abrogation it would then be an entirely different case and legitimately delay or even settle the case being brought. The ONLY reason a sworn upholder of the law would place artificial rules, common law, states laws, congressional law or any other barrier between the supreme law and the upholding of it would be to diminish that constitutional law by removing its protections from the people. Courts may very well function within their rules however it is clear the prime goal of all laws are to protect that constitution not protect those who are in violation of it or even seeking to violate it as a result of some other indirect act. Since all courts have the power of subpoena they can all seek to uphold the constitution by merely demanding the proofs required by the supreme law be made public. It is their duty to do this whenever a valid question comes in front of them.
Two brief quotes from Hamilton;
“In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
Alexander HamiltonThe Founders ConstitutionVolume 1, Chapter 3, Document 5http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
It is not otherwise to be supposed that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.
Alexander HamiltonFederalist #78Founders ConstitutionVolume 1, Chapter 17, Document 24http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s24.html
