To: TheCipher
If they want to challenge the constitutionality of the law ... That's exactly the point. There's a legitimate question about who "they" are -- in terms of finding someone who has the legal standing to challenge this appointment.
91 posted on
11/09/2018 4:56:06 AM PST by
Alberta's Child
("The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them ... like Russians will.")
To: Alberta's Child
My "point" was that Nap said he wasn't
legally qualified to serve. He is wrong in saying that. He is legally qualified to serve. Here he is saying it. Specifically talking about the USCode. He mentions part a but fails to mention part b where it says that he is legally qualified. This just shows that Nap is either lazy or being intentionally misleading
Fox & Friends
101 posted on
11/09/2018 5:09:03 AM PST by
TheCipher
(To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature Congressman. - Mark Twain)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson