For the sake of brevity I excerpted just the pertinent paragraphs from judges’ rulings that pertain to the subject of this thread. There are sections of the full orders of each judge devoted to discussions of relevant statutes and cited precedents. Anyone can read the full orders at scribd.com
You have a black belt in parsing language but a ruling stands unless and until it is reversed by a higher court.
There have been 90 state and federal appellate rulings on eligibility challenges and also 26 petitions and applications at SCOTUS. All of the original jurisdiction rulings stand and as I ‘m sure you know, appeals courts rule on possible incorrect application of law and legal procedure.
There’s never been a single ruling of an incorrect application of law; and of course state court rulings cite similar rulings in other states.
American general elections are conducted on a 50 state plus federal district basis. Purpura (NJ), Allen (AZ), Voeltz (FL) and Swensson, et. al. (GA) were challenges to eligibility for STATE ballots.
So you say, yet if you wanted to present a persuasive argument, you could show where these excerpts are backed up by a sound legal foundation. So far, this has been an epic fail as I just showed.
You have a black belt in parsing language but a ruling stands unless and until it is reversed by a higher court.
We already have a well-established precedent from the highest court in the land that prevents Obama from qualifying for the office of president. Certainly, lower courts can fail to follow Supreme Court precedence and you have shown that pretty clearly.
There have been 90 state and federal appellate rulings on eligibility challenges and also 26 petitions and applications at SCOTUS. All of the original jurisdiction rulings stand and as I ‘m sure you know, appeals courts rule on possible incorrect application of law and legal procedure.
Or they don't. You're relying on circular logic. Supremacy by error doesn't override the error.
There’s never been a single ruling of an incorrect application of law; and of course state court rulings cite similar rulings in other states.
Nonsense. All rulings that refer to the natural-born citizen clause have been incorrect when compared to Supreme Court citations. The rest may be correct on procedural obstacles such as legal standing, officers who are exempted from responsiblity for vetting presidential candidates, timing of legal filings, etc., but they still don't override the principle on Article II eligibility that has been consistently defined by the Supreme Court as all children born in the country to citizen parents.
American general elections are conducted on a 50 state plus federal district basis. Purpura (NJ), Allen (AZ), Voeltz (FL) and Swensson, et. al. (GA) were challenges to eligibility for STATE ballots.
Yeah ... and the point is what?? No one has disputed that these were challeges to eligibility on state ballots.
When you know the rock that the snake is hiding under its amazing how you can pick-up a 100 rocks and and not find a snake.
No one in the power circle - include judges - want to pick the correct rock. They know what is waiting if they do.