As I've said before, I don't really have an opinion on the merits of this issue (i.e. whether or not Obama is in fact a natural born citizen). I would say that my hunch is that he is a natural born citizen, but that doesn't much matter because I'm not in a position to know. Bear in mind, even if he wasn't born in Hawaii, there is still a strong likelihood that he is legally defined by U.S. code as a citizen at birth, and thus a natural born citizen.
That having been said, I believe there is a way to make sure that this issue is heard by the Supreme Court. As it stands now, SCOTUS is being asked to review the case based on its appellate jurisdiction, which in this kind of a case is discretionary. They don't have to consider the case if they don't want to, and as I've said, I suspect that they will choose not to. Even if Alan Keyes' case was brought to SCOTUS, it would go through the same process. SCOTUS could very well deny his petition for a writ of cert; and thus, would never consider the merits of the case.
BUT, there are some instances where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and is entitled to be the original adjudicator of a case. More importantly, per U.S. code Title 28, there are some cases in which SCOTUS has original and exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, they are the only ones that can hear the case - not state courts, not lower federal courts. Those cases are ones in which there is a dispute between two or more states.
So, if a state filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate against any or all of the states that Obama won, asking the court to order those states not to certify the electors on the basis of Obama's possible ineligibility to the office of Presidency, it would be the duty of SCOTUS to hear that petition. They could of course dismiss it on various grounds, one of those being standing. I suspect that another state would be found to have standing though, since they are an equal sovereign entity within the Republic for which a President is being chosen. They could no doubt be injured by the inauguration of an ineligible President. If SCOTUS dismissed the case on other grounds, they would likely be saying that they don't think this case has any merit. At the very least, we would probably have an assessment by the Supreme Court on the merits of the issue in general, which we won't necessarily get with Berg's petition.
Would a state that voted heavily for McCain be willing to enter such a petition? That probably depends on whether or not they believe the case has any merit to begin with.
Anyway, I'm just looking at possible scenarios from a purely academic standpoint.
WTF does that mean? Do you mean that some people think that 40 acres and a mule is part of the Constitution? If so, those people are ignorant. To say that we'd have to follow a non-law if we're going to follow the law is just plain stupid.
wh wh wha you say? 