This is an interesting take by a poster on the daily paul website:

What will happen on Jan 21 or 22 ?.. This is TOTALLY crazy,... BUT WHAT IF..

Posted January 21st

Did the Supreme Court have to wait until AFTER Obama was inaugurated, before they could LEGALLY hear a case regarding his eligibility? My take is.. it's very possible. The following theory could be a reason why they would have chosen to wait;

I know this sounds absolutely crazy, but nothing would surprise me at this point! I have always loved constitutional law, and those cases before the SCOTUS.

Several times in recent history Congress has passed a law or laws which clearly violated the Constitution of the United States. Suites were immediately filed in the US Supreme Court to stop those laws, before they could be implemented against the citizens of the several States.

In most of those cases the SCOTUS would NOT entertain a ruling against the Federal Government because no ones rights had yet been violated. Their Court ruling was on the premise the Government had not yet violated any particular person’s Constitutional Rights, and the Plaintiff’s in the case were NOT an injured party, and therefore had NO standing to bring a suite. It is important to understand that the Government had not yet attempted to enforce the law at the time of the suites.

I have always thought such rulings by the SCOTUS meant the Court supported the Governments position in the first place. But a year of two later when the Government attempted to prosecute an individual for violations of those same Unconstitutional Laws, the Court then chose to hear the case. And many cases they overturned the LAW as being Unconstitutional. WHY.. Simply, because now the Court had an injured party bringing the suite. Remember, Common Law requires that there be an injured party, before any suite can go forward. How many times haven’t we heard the police say to someone, sorry we can’t do anything about it until the perpetrator ACTUALLY breaks the law.

NOW COMES MY CRAZY THEORY.
The United States Constitution does NOT SAY that a person who is NOT a natural born citizen shall be EXCLUDED from RUNNING for the Presidency of the United States. But instead it says the President of the United States must be a Natural Born citizen.

Is it possible that no violation of the Constitution had occurred prior to Obama being sworn into office. And until He was actually sworn into office there was no violation of the Constitution, and therefore no injured party(s).

Now we come to the “Something ominous is going to happen on January 21 or 22â€