The idea is to prevent a constitutional crisis.
I like Ted Cruz and if he is likely a NBC even under the strictest of definitions.
PREVENT? We are in the fifth year of a constitutional crisis. I’ve read obsessively the eligibility threads and it’s crystal clear what the intent of the Constitution is, and the meaning of NBC. There is not one court decision that says an NBC is whatever any wants it to mean.
And the idea that Cruz is a NBC by a strict definion - Insanity! He was born in CA and lived there for 4 years and his father was a Cuban citizen.
That the courts have not ruled on this only proves they are either leftist commie scum or chickens***s.
Why would the courts rule when Senator Cruz isn’t even an announced candidate for any Article II, Section 1 position?
He’s a first eight months of his first term U.S. Senator and he’s eligible for that position.
The real test will come in 2016 if Senator Cruz should turn out to be the most viable and electable conservative alternative to Chris Christie to run against Hillary Clinton.
I don’t disagree with your view of the courts.
It’s the same dilemma Chief Justice Marshall (and others since) faced in Marbury v. Madison.
The high court often faces the possibility that its decision will be ignored by the Executive and the power of the judiciary will be diminished.
It happened under Andrew Jackson in the most flagrant manner one can imagine.
The problem historically (and presently) is that the only apparent limit on the executive is its own audacity and willingness to be restricted by the Constitution and laws.
The other branches are without a paddle so it seems.
I’m not describing my preference but merely the reality in place at the present time.
I’m with you on your frustrations.