The Art Of Divination

On the eve of an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter to be referred to as the SCOTUS) for that august body to hear a case regarding, in its major part, a challenge to the eligibility of one Barack Hussein Obama to hold the particular office that he is occupying, what is happening, in and to the State of the Union?

Answer: A major challenge to its continuance.

Consider.  And this, from what I have observed, after having been out of the country for a good number of years, and so having the benefit of a perspective with a degree of freshness about it, that those who have been in the simmering and steadily heating-up pot don't have.

For I seem to have missed something, while I was away.1  I seem to have missed the passing of a constitutional amendment stating something like: 'The rights and powers formerly reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside basically in the federal government, to be decided in the end by the SCOTUS majority at any given time in its history, and then by a throw of the dice.'  

I jest.  But barely.

You, ladies and gentlemen of the SCOTUS, would appear to have been making your majority decisions by just that: a throw of the dice.  Or runes.  Or divination of animal entrails.  Or something similarly arcane.  Well, as a result: the die is cast on you.  And you are found wanting.  

For - in taking the case mentioned above as an example - if the executive branch of the federal government and the legislative branch of the same gang up on the Constitution - what then, to and for the rule of law in the nation??

You have to intercede, in such a case.

You seem to have enjoyed treating the Constitution like 'just a damn piece of paper,' as it has been referred to on high authority of late - to have dealt with it in a rather cavalier fashion over lo these many recent years.  But on the constitutional issue of the current occupant of the presidential office's eligibility - oh no.  That is the Congress's hot potato -  er, prerogative.  And all of a sudden, the SCOTUS reverts to a strict-constructionist constitutional position…

SCOTUS,  thy name is Hypocrite.     

To say: I think they are, the SCOTUS is, choosing not to have a constitutional confrontation with the Congress, whose job it is to deal with eligibility issues.2  So, the constitutional confrontation they both need to have is with "the States, or" with The People, Assembled.  Where there is strength in numbers; and in the righteousness of their cause.

---

footnotes:

1 And dating from before that time period; before I understood much about the nation's constitutional lawmaking, in just growing up in the country, minding my own business; not that of the nation's.

2 Along the lines that it decreed that ObamaCare was a tax, and therefore constitutional; that it wasn't up to the SCOTUS to rule contrary to the will of the Congress in the instance, was rather up to The People to vote for those representatives who would rule over them.   

     They got that partly right.  But as I said above: If the executive branch and the legislative branch gang up against the rule of law, what are you going to do?  Play solitaire??

     Who guards the guards???