[ClearCase_guy]

The NBC thing has been a cloudy issue since Obama started running. There is no clear definition. The language of the Constitution has to be interpreted either this way or that way. No one knows because there has been no explicit ruling.

I’d like this settled. For Obama, for Cruz, for the next guy.

I think a candidate (Trump) has “standing” to demand that a court decide if another candidate can actually hold the office which they are both seeking.

[hoosiermama]

Remember the search and discussion to find another candidate to challenge 0 Finally a case was filed in CA. Other candidates do have standing.
Standing can be equated to harm. In this situation Cruz, Rubio, Santorum , Jindall and even Trump could be used to clarify the issue. IMO the most damaged is the RNC if any of them do not qualify. They are the ones who should insist on settled law Using each or all as parties to the request.

Xxxxxxx this post today points out an even greater concern: SC appointments

.......
In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a “natural born citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

2 posted on January 17, 2016 at 6:58:56 AM EST by Helicondelta

[georgiegirl]

Obama opened that barn door and now others feel emboldened to walk through. Just another standard that has been torn down by O. Personally, I don’t want to see a Canadian born win the presidency, no matter how many judges say its okay.

[exinnj]

No, he does not have standing, because Cruz NBC status has not hurt him in any shape or form. Yet. It will if and when Cruz wins the Presidency. Unfortunately for Trump no court will be interested in overturning election results.
It is sad that Trump, instead of highlighting the advantages of his future policies as POTUS over Cruz’s (if there are any...) wastes everybody time and emotions.

[Jim Noble]

demand that a court decide if another candidate can actually hold the office

That's a non-justiceable political question.

Affirmation of eligibility is assigned by the Constitution to Congress, and only to Congress. The doctrine of non-justiceability covers exactly this situation, wherein functions of Constitutional interpretation that are explicitly delegated to another branch cannot be resolved in the courts.

Whether a person with >270 electoral votes "can hold the office" is decided by Congress, at the Special Joint Session described in Article II and Amendment XII.