Seems the judge was looking for an easy way to weasel out of doing an inconvenient job which would anger the Powers that Be against him.
"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he continued. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'
"The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II 'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be president," the attorney said.
Pity too many folks insist that it's proven that Obama qualifies to be President, despite knowing full well that they never saw any valid evidence at all, that none was ever offered by anyone. People who lazily prefer to believe what the Big Media and the Leftist intimidators are demanding they believe... ie. political correctness... are pussies.
No one who has told me I'm nuts to be pursuing this issue has ever presented me with any link to any valid evidence, either, that Obama ever proved he was born on American soil.
It's for this lack of evidence that I continue my interest in the issue. Someone has to do it, despite the social consequences of doing so.
As an analogy, pretending I'm Christopher Columbus:
They can all say the world is flat if they want. But I say it's round because of what I've observed, and due to the fact that nothing I've observed logically suggests it's flat. Besides, the flat-earth folks never offered any evidence to back up their insistent dogma that the world's flat.
The world is clearly round, and Obama is, absent valid evidence to the contrary, clearly not legally, Constitutionally the President.
Can anyone prove that he is, legally, Constitutionally, keeping in mind the Eligibility Clause, President?
If it's proven to me, then I'll drop it. But until then, if ever, I'll continue.
Because I believe that the U.S. Constituion is sacred, sarcosanct, and MUST be obeyed.
Those who willingly disobey the Constitution are risking helping to inspire civil war.
This is the importance of the Constitution: When there are those who believe in it and those who don't, and there's no Constitutionally-required, proper, strict, democratic process followed for changing it for those who want it changed, then civil war is a very real possibility.
What's happening now is that Obama and the Democrats are disobeying the Constitution, smearing those who say they must obey it, calling legitimate questions about constitutionality of policies "not serious".
It's a very dangerous game the Obamacrats are playing.
Civil war is a potential result when there's disagreement between a fascist regime who dismisses the Constitution on the one hand, and, on the other, the People who believe in it and insist it be obeyed.
Does the Extreme Left want to have a civil war over the Constitution? Will they risk this to impose socialism onto America, take away Americans' rights and submit America and Americans to a global governing regime, whose essential nature is unknowable?