There's no formal mechanism possessed by voters or electors for making a finding of eligibility. I've already pointed out that several states regulate eligibility for appearing on a state's ballot. You're relying on circular logic for something that just isn't true.
While the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.
We haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before. AND they did more than "hint" about presidential eligibiility which I showed in the Luria citation. What would be the point of making a statement inclusive of Art II eligibility if they completely lack any power to make a legal determination??
For the life of me, I don't know what accounts for your distrust of the voters and their electors.
I didn't say anything about distrusting either. They have no formal authority over constitutional eligibility. The electorate can vote for all kinds of people who aren't eligible (and they do).
Voters and their electors know that they cannot elect a person who doesn't meet the qualifications.
Sorry, but this is an assumption. Unless you've done a survey or know of a survey, this means nothing.
The good news for you is that you can be a voter, too, and you can judge for yourself the qualifications of the candidates.
The better news is that as a voter, I have the statutory right to challenge an ineligible candidate. It's not just about making a personal judgment that has no effect on anyone else.
And, if you prefer to let Emerich de Vattel tell you how to vote, that's your right. Frankly, I think his fans will have a difficult time convincing other voters that it's best that we now turn our future over to some 18th century Swiss egghead who liked to anesthetize himself with fuzzy thinking/speculation about the nature and origins of citizenship.
This is an ignorant comment. Vattel has been cited frequently by the Supreme Court in reference to citizenship and our Mr. Rogers admits that the Minor court relied on this to define NBC. Obama does not fit their definition.
Don't waste your time waiting for some judges to come along and reverse the decisions of the voters/electors. They're not coming. There are good reasons why the score remains 57-0.
Stuck with a circular logic fallacy that doesn't disprove that the electorate is ignorant and worse, perhaps apathetic about Constitutional requirements and moreso, Supreme Court precedence. The score is more likely 55-2.
This was a very interesting dialog you had with Tau Food. My overall take on the points discussed is that Tau apparently believes the voters are always the final determinant/judge and as such must be considered infallible as to any lack of knowledge of Constitutional requirements. Of late I see some validity in what I take as Tau’s argument(s) about the SC’s authority as to being supreme over the vote of the people by virtue of the Constitution being supreme over even the SC. However on the other side of the dialog I believe Tau’s remarks as to what accounts for ‘distrust of the voters’ is way outside the park of understanding the real world. The world is/has been shaped by lying politicians and the Obama enabling press to note a couple of causes besides public apathy and even ignorance of the Constitutional process and wording. As far as Vattel being in the discourse and history, I believe that Vattel was a very significant part/player in the Founder’s considering a Constitution for the USA especially as to Franklin’s involvement.
The vote is a formal mechanism and implicit in the vote for a candidate is a finding by the voter that the candidate is qualified. Similarly, a general verdict of guilty or not guilty carries with it the presumption that it is based upon jury findings necessary to support the verdict.
We haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before. AND they did more than "hint" about presidential eligibiility which I showed in the Luria citation. What would be the point of making a statement inclusive of Art II eligibility if they completely lack any power to make a legal determination??
People in government write and say lots of things. A president can offer his opinion on the meaning of terms (including the NBC term) in the Constitution. So can any Congressman. That does not mean that that president or that Congressman is claiming the constitutional power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a candidate is qualified to be president.
I won't suggest for a minute that the Constitution imposes limits on the content of the discussion portion of court opinions. When you read a judicial opinion, it is important to read the end of the opinion where the court indicates what it has decided to actually do. For example, the ruling might "affirm" or "reverse" a lower court's decision in the case, with or without specific directions to that lower court for further action. Or, it might authorize the issuance of a writ or an order in some other form. It is that part of the opinion in which the court is claiming a power to act, a power to do something. That is where the constitutional rubber meets the road.
As I said before, while the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified. And, they won't, for obvious reasons.
Your analysis proceeds from two premises:
First, that "[w]e haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before" and
Second, that the Supreme Court has the power to reverse the decision of the voters and their electors.
Assuming (as you do) that those two premises are correct, how do you account for the reality that in over four years, the Supreme Court has failed to find a means of correcting what must appear to you to be a monstrous and blatantly obvious constitutional crime? How do you account for a Republican Chief Justice actually assisting in the commission of this monstrous and blatantly obvious constitutional crime by administering the oath of office (an act which is not required of a Chief Justice)?
Do you think the time has come for you to consider the possibility that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court might disagree with one or both of your premises? Is it perhaps time for you to reconsider those premises?