I claim that it cannot be determined until SCOTUS colors in some of the voids and ambiguities left by current precedent. To do that, you need discovery. What I am even less sure of is what remedy may be available if he were to be found ineligible. The effect would more likely be a complete political debilitation until a subsequent election.
BTW, as a matter of full disclosure, my opinion on this is no better than my opinion on some esoteric tax law. It’s not an area in which I would claim any special proficiency. That’s why I just watch all the technical fighting with detached amusement. There is no easy answer, especially for amateurs like us. And there can be no answer for anyone at all without factual transparency.
BTW #2, I wouldn’t take apparent consistency among Con Law profs as proof of anything other than the monolithic dominance of postmodern constitutionalism in the academy. Arguments from authority are second-rate. Just because all the professors believe in a flat earth doesn’t make Galileo an idiot.
[To LorenC] “I claim that it cannot be determined until SCOTUS colors in some of the voids and ambiguities left by current precedent. To do that, you need discovery. What I am even less sure of is what remedy may be available if he were to be found ineligible. The effect would more likely be a complete political debilitation until a subsequent election.
...
BTW #2, I wouldn’t take apparent consistency among Con Law profs as proof of anything other than the monolithic dominance of postmodern constitutionalism in the academy. Arguments from authority are second-rate. Just because all the professors believe in a flat earth doesn’t make Galileo an idiot.”
Here here... Clap clap!