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?
You're meandering here. The vote is NOT a formal mechanism in terms of making a finding about a candidate's eligibility. The stuff about guilty verdicts is bizarre and irrelevant. Three questions will help prove why voting is not an eligiblity mechanism.
Is it possible for voters to vote for ineligible candidates?
Is it possible for electors to vote for ineligible canidates?
Is it possible for an ineligible candidate to get elected to an office?
The answer to any and all of these question is "yes." If there were a mechanism for voters/electors to make formal findings of eligibility, then the answers should be no to all three questions.
People in government write and say lots of things.
A preface, for "I don't have a real argument." People on discussion boards write and say lots of things too, but that's a not reason to discount statements that are supported by known legal precedents.
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.
Sorry, but that's not the only part of a decision where a precedent is set. It certainly gives the action of the court, but the legal priniciples used for guidance can be in any part of a decision, or in some cases, expressed in the syllabus.
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?
Part of it is because several of the cases that have made it this far haven't properly cited Minor v. Happersett and Luria to show the court's historical precedent on the issue. Second, there's a known political divide within the court, and the issue has been effectively marginalized to the point where a lot of people are simply afraid to touch it.
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)?
A) It's not up to a Chief Justice to take invididual action against an elected candidate, and B) at the time Obama was first sworn in to office, the Supreme Court precedent was not cited properly, and C) there's still a formal protocol that should be followed to make sure the case is heard, and D) Roberts may simply have been blissfully ignorant, happy to perform a ceremonial function.
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?
These questions are based on circular logic. The act of swearing in an ineligible candidate doesn't make the candidate eligible. The refusal of a court to hear a case doesn't make an ineligible candidate eligible. The Supreme Court citations I've given speak for themselves: all children born in the country to citizen parents ... these are the natural-born citizens. Obama was NOT born to citizen parents. We still don't know where he was born, but unless his father was a citizen, he is not and cannot be Constitutionally eligible for office. The failures of the courts to affirm and uphold their own historical precedent does NOT make Obama Constitutionally legitimate.