So, other than the EC, can anyone else prevent this from happening? Yes. You. You can bring the court case that will survive the challenge from Obama, the Plaintiff lacks standing.
Issue: Given that the President functions as Commander in Chief (“CIC”) of the armed services under the U.S. Constitution; that the CIC is authorized to order members of the armed services, including the national guard, into combat duty; that while serving combat duty such combatants may logically be required to inflict casualties on the enemy; and that causing the death of another under the color of law but not the rule of law could subject that combatant to criminal charges of murder and, on conviction, to execution for his crime; does a member of the military or national guard, currently deployed in or scheduled for deployment to a combat situation, have the particularized standing required by the federal court so as to create a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully petition the federal court to examine whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and rule on his eligibility to be POTUS?
Answer: Yes.
The elements that would establish standing in federal court, and which Judge Surrick found missing in the Berg case; would be present in a case where the nexus between the injury that would likely result if Obama is not a natural born citizen is more direct. For example, if Obama is not a natural born citizen then he is legally ineligible to be POTUS. And that means any orders he issues under the color of law of POTUS lack the real authority of law. Commanding troops to go into combat where they will likely inflict casualties on the enemy, if illegal, thus exposes soldiers to the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, merely for doing what they believed was their job. (Conversely, under the Code, questioning the legitimacy of the President to hold this position once he is in office subjects soldiers to discipline under “Contempt for Officials.”) This nexus between Obama’s ineligibility and the likely harm that would result establishes standing, in the eyes of the law.
Mr. Obama also pointed out to the court that alleging a violation of Article II “fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because it fails to establish a cause of action.” Mr. Berg justified his presence before the court by citing the Declaratory Judgment Act. But as Obama successfully argued, this Act only affords a procedural remedy to an underlying cause of action. Thus, “a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction.” And there is no federal cause of action under Article II. But he was wrong.
There certainly is a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for soldiers who would be compelled to engage in conduct that could result in execution, deprived of due process of law because their Commander in Chief is ineligible for office.
42 U.S.C. §1983 states
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law …. “In order to bring action under §1983, one must allege that defendant violated plaintiff‘s constitutional rights and the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1994). Under the definition of acting under state law, the defendant in a §1983 action must have exercised power ”possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.“ West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
And there’s a cause of action under that same law for all of the families of all of those members of the armed forces, including National Guard members who would be deprived of their loved ones under such a scheme.
The most obvious “person” subjecting Plaintiff(s) to this unlawful “deprivation” in a §1983 suit is the S of S in Plaintiff’s state. But Defendants could also include Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi; the DNC; and the state Party chair, since all of these people were inextricably bound up in the governmental function of carrying out the election to be deemed state actors in this enterprise.
In conclusion, no one has verified candidate for POTUS Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the EC is poised to cast their votes for him on December 15.
Unless someone produces documentary evidence establishing he was born in Kenya, the only forum to conclusively decide his legal status lies in federal court. This means filing a suit that would survive a challenge to standing. Given the recent pronouncements by the court in the several cases pending, among the Plaintiffs who could establish standing necessary to force this inquiry are members of the military or National Guard scheduled for deployment or about to be scheduled for deployment to a combat zone; and members of their families.
, but what scares you so much about a conservative, intelligent, successful, attractive woman?
you have got 
