To: BarnacleCenturion; arthurus; georgia girl; grobdriver; Responsibility2nd
It appears to me the only way this is going to be resolved in case such as Cruz and Rubio and Jindal is for the SCOTUS to accept a case. The only way SCOTUS is going to accept a case is if the test presented in Jones v Bush is applied.
I am not trying to argue the merits of any case, but I think the courts would pretty cite the 14th amendment in its decision. I can count at least 6 votes now.
23 posted on
07/24/2013 2:53:13 PM PDT by
Perdogg
(Cruz-Paul 2016)
To: Perdogg
It appears to me the only way this is going to be resolved in case such as Cruz and Rubio and Jindal is for the SCOTUS to accept a case...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dunno. By SCOTUS remaining silent on hundreds of lower court rulings, does that not send a clear signal that Obama is eligible?
I don’t think we need a new Amendment reversing the NBC clause of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling. The lower courts have ruled; the precedent is set. Therefore....
Ted Cruz - 2016
29 posted on
07/24/2013 3:07:49 PM PDT by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: Perdogg
The Proper solution is a Congressional Act. The wording of the Constitutional provision seems to call for such an act at an appropriate time.
37 posted on
07/24/2013 3:42:12 PM PDT by
arthurus
(Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson