On January 15, 2009, the Pennsylvania Green Party’s US Senate candidate from 2006, Carl Romanelli, again asked the Commonwealth Court for relief from having to pay over $80,000 to the people who challenged his petition. Here is his brief. It mentions the constitutional issue, and argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent suggests that voters and candidates cannot be charged for the costs of administering elections, particularly if they can’t afford it.

On January 21, the challengers filed a brief in response, but the response brief completely ignores the constitutional argument.

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court unsurprisingly denied Phil Berg’s request for a stay, in Berg v Obama, 08A505. That is the last aspect of that particular case that had been in the U.S. Supreme Court. Phil Berg has been the nation’s most energetic proponent of the idea that the Courts should examine President Obama’s qualifications.

Scotusblog has this commentary about the possibility that someone might want to sue over the fact that the words for the swearing-in oath for President Obama weren’t precisely in the order specified in the Constitution. The piece concludes that no one would have standing. Other stories in newspapers quote some legal experts as recommending that the oath be readministered. See this San Francisco Chronicle article. The redo could be done in private, and some experts even speculated that it has already been redone in private. Thanks to How Appealing for the links. UPDATE: on January 21, President Obama took the oath again, in a private ceremony. See this article.