Repeatedly, I have stated that Obama was found to be eligible by the voters and their electors in accordance with the Constitution. Repeatedly, I have stated that the judiciary does not have the power to reverse that decision. No court has and no court will.
If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??
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.
For the life of me, I don't know what accounts for your distrust of the voters and their electors. Voters and their electors know that they cannot elect a person who doesn't meet the qualifications. They know that they cannot select a president and vice-president who are inhabitants of the same state. They know about the age requirement and the residency requirement. It's their job to select only qualified candidates. And, I think most people believe that they do a much better job than could be expected from a roomful of elitist judges at the Supreme Court.
The good news for you is that you can be a voter, too, and you can judge for yourself the qualifications of the candidates. 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. But, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Go for it.
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.
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.