[lentulusgracchus]

Obama's attorney's basically argued there is no opportunity for any court to review the eligibility of the nominee of a party for president, which Klayman argued could not have been the intent of the drafters

So Klayman is insisting that, because the Constitution was written before there were parties and therefore before there were nominations, that only Congress can review the eligibility of a successful candidate for the Presidency, and then only after the electors have affirmed his election?

So an ineligible person like Obama runs the entire course, wins election, is elected by the Electoral College -- and then and only then can the Congress interpose and reject the candidate who is ineligible under Article II?

Is that about the argument?

[Seizethecarp]

“So Klayman is insisting that, because the Constitution was written before there were parties and therefore before there were nominations, that only Congress can review the eligibility of a successful candidate for the Presidency, and then only after the electors have affirmed his election?”

No, Klayman, representing the eligibility activist, is arguing against that position, which was taken by Obama’s attorneys.