The chief justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama into office not once but twice. He didn't recuse himself because he was conflicted by his duty to the constitution, he swore him into office and then did it again four years later.
If you think that's wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't matter. The precedent has been confirmed by the Supreme Court twice.
That is... unless you are going to have to get a constitutional amendment passed to change it. The Supreme Court won't protect us from Obama, Harris, Rubio, Cruz or the eventually candidate who is the child of illegal immigrants. (Maybe that one will get a look from the supreme Court, but I doubt it).
Start a movement to clarify eligibility for POTUS as a constitutional amendment and get it ratified. Until then, it's all just meaningless ranting on an internet forum.
The precedent has been confirmed by the Supreme Court twice. Pleas link me to cases.
when did the court do this. Swearing in the election winner after refusing 6 cases is not support, it’s cover up and complicity
a constitutional amendment will not make people follow the constitution if they don’t already follow it.
“The chief justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama into office not once but twice. He didn’t recuse himself because he was conflicted by his duty to the constitution, he swore him into office and then did it again four years later”.
The Chief Justice is under no constitutional obligation to negate an action of the electoral college absent an adjudication before the Supreme court after a grant of certiorari to hear the matter. No case on Article II president-elect eligibility has ever come before the Supreme Court. Therefore an objection by the Chief Justice before or at the swearing in ceremony would be completely inappropriate.
This ritual action says NOTHING about the constitutional merits of the issue.