If Texas defined NBC in a way that Ted Cruz was eligible, would the feds have any say over it beyond that point, since Texas found him “qualified” to be on their ballot?
Of course, CA could define Arnold Schwartzneggar as eligible in the same way. Would it be nobody but Californians’ business?
I don’t know. When AZ had their eligibility bill there was the threat of suing over the constitutionality of it because a state can’t have its own definition of NBC. AZ backed down because they were already under attack by our own federal government as well as under attack from illegals and drug cartels. But if they had held on, we could have had the judiciary giving us legal answers before the 2012 election. The DOJ would have HAD to challenge, if only to try to protect Obama.
My understanding is that state law cannot supercede federal law, so California could not find Schwarzeneggar to be a citizen with the right to the presidency, since he is obviously a naturalized citizen.
Texas, however, could simply affirm current law and make that their definition of “natural born citizen” for presidential primaries and elections held within their state.
Just my opinion, of course, but it seems to be reasonable.
When I think about the what-if’s and realize that if we had all stood with Arizona’s eligibility bill, Holder would have sued and the courts would have been forced to rule on NBC... I realize how important the detractors in places like FR really were to the strategy of keeping the question dividing the conservative base. Soros et al knew we had Jindal and Rubio coming up and that this issue would divide us. Now there’s Cruz and the issue is still dividing us - and the only way that is ever going to stop is by getting a legally-binding ruling to settle the issue.
They want the issue unresolved. It gives them a weapon and it keeps conservatives divided.
That’s one reason why I ask if people have any objections to the issue being resolved in court. It seems to me that there are 2 reasons somebody might object:
1) if they’re afraid the courts will rule wrongly now but can be brought to a point where they will rule rightly if we can hold off on the decision for a while..... or
2) if they want the issue unresolved so Hillary can have a lethal weapon to use if Cruz wins, which is also made less likely if the conservative base is divided over this unresolved issue.
I think it’s important for us to clarify our reasons and sort them out. What’s scary about the above scenario is that strong constitutionalists thinking #1 would appear to be the same as Cruz-hating GOP-e’s thinking #2 and leftists thinking #2.
For those who are thinking #1, it has to be alarming to be on the same side as George Soros and Karl Rove. Seems like there has to be a different option...