Replies

What Constitutional grounds would there be for knocking down that particular law if it was enacted?

I know that the Department of Injustice would challenge anything that could actually protect the Constitution. That’s the legacy of this DOJ. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we don’t get a handle on the Department of Injustice they will make sure that this nation is enslaved in every way possible.

I would be honored to be involved in kicking this Department of Injustice in the nuts. I say bring it. If SCOTUS is going to sell the nation down the river I’d rather know sooner rather than later so I can prepare for the inevitable Revolution or death, whichever comes first.

I did not mean to leave our conversation so abruptly last night, but my wife unplugged the computer at 11:45 p.m. and told me I was going to spend the last 15 minutes of 2010 and the first hour of 2011 with her. I gladly complied. LOL The reason your proposed law will attacked as unconstitutional is that it places an extra-constitutional requirement and limitation on the ability to urn for President. It will be a legal argument similiar to the argument made regarding term limits passed by various states for federal offices (US Senator & Representative) when SCOTUS declared them to be unconstitutional in the 90’s. I am not saying it is slam dunk for that ruling, but the prevailing legal sentiment certainly supports the view that requiring 2 citizens-parent, if the person is born in the USA, to be a unconstitutional infringement. As I said in a previous post, Your proposed law will certainly get that issue into the courts, I just don't think Scotus will weigh in the the issue if the lower courts find the law to be unconstitutional. But it is probably your best bet for some type of judicial resolution.