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.
Let me try again now that I know the specific misunderstanding...
To have standing you have to have been ‘injured’. When you research the way the dealer closings went down per the Obama administration, there was one clear concise link...most of them were either dealers who are registered Republicans or dealers who were outspoken against the Obama administrations policies on the economy and a lot of them (those in the lawsuit) were of the most profoitable and independently run ( not in need of govt subsidies).
The dealerships that remained open and that were close to those (the most profitable & economically viable) that were shut down, all had one very important tie... A direct connection to Obama & the Democrats via political donations & political appointments.
Hope this helps.
This whole thing is giving me a headache...