They have a point. You could nominate Donald Duck if you want — he just couldn’t serve as president. Nominating someone who is ineligible would seem to be a very stupid thing to do. But that doesn’t mean you can’t nominate such a person.
Of possible interest.
I am sure that this was inserted into legal lore just to ensure that the lawyers maintain their control over the proles. It seems to have the effect of "if you are correct - you still lose" or "this can mean just what WE want it to mean" and even "it's our bat and ball - we make the rules." Since Dems are lawyers and lawyers are Dems - guess what this means.
There’s a difference between being qualified to hold this office, and being eligible to do so. As the son of two citizen parents, born in the USA, I am certainly eligible, but I don’t claim to be qualified.
Obama is neither qualified nor is he eligible.
100% CORRECT
Qualifications mean nothing. Eligibility on the other hand.....
Yet another court takes the cowards way out by shirking its duty on procedural grounds. Only ONE Obama eligibility suit has to date been decided on the merits and was “judicially butchered” by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi earlier this year.
The easiest and safest way for biased or cowardly judges to allow Hussein to continue in the White House is by ruling that questions of eligibility may not be pressed! Once again, a judge has done just that.
With Barry sinking in the polls, destined for landslide defeat, will they play their hand and challange Obamah at the convention to steal the nomination?
“affidavits of truth”
It begs the question.
It is very odd that they include the “someone who is not eligible for office”.