Lack of precedent only means it hasn't been done before. Not having been done before is not a reason to not pursue it now.
Maybe it's time establish the precedent for the future.
-PJ
The SCOTUS can only take cases when there is a case or controversy. I don’t think at anytime in history has a candidate about whom there was even the slightest controversy about his “natural born citizenship” status actually WON the election-—thereby, making it matter.
This is one of the reasons why the Supremes should jump on this issue now-—it needs to be more settled and the fact pattern might not come around again for a while. In the Donofrio case, he challenges the eligibility of Obama, McCain and that that dude who was actually born in Nicarauga. That’s all good.
PJT: "Lack of precedent only means it hasn't been done before. Not having been done before is not a reason to not pursue it now."
I agree wholeheartedly. The 20th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 3, deals in part with the president-elect who has "failed to qualify." It does not matter at all that there is no precedent, when the CONSTITUTION prescribes the remedy.
We should always defer to the Constitution rather than our fears of what may or may not happen.
Lack of precedent only means it hasn't been done before. Not having been done before is not a reason to not pursue it now.
Maybe it's time establish the precedent for the future. -PJ
Actually, awake-n-angry has it backwards (or in the "negative").
There is no precedent for anyone but a truly natural born citizen (i.e., born in American territory and having a father who is an American Citizen) or someone grandfathered by Article 2, having ever been U.S. President.