I understand the ‘authority’ aspect of the legal angle.
But I still don’t understand how to go to court and challenge ‘eligibility’ based on actions that are unconstitutional.
I am not trying to be obstinate, just trying to understand the legal underpinnings.
As an example, say Clinton had directed the EPA to regulate all of our CO2 emissions or had caused Chrysler dealers to lose their businesses. I could understand that such actions are not legal and that the ‘authority’ could be challenged. But eligibility? I don’t get that.
However, if a president was not eligible and a lawsuit to address this ineligibility was advanced, then once ineligibility was decided, THEN all ‘authority’ would be invalid including past directives and orders.
But I don’t see how these Chrysler dealers can challenge eligibility. I can see a challenge to ‘authority’ but not eligibility.
If they are indeed challenging ‘eligibility’, I would love to see their legal filing.