[nufsed]

If you do not meet the constitutional requirements to HOLD office, you can’t be voted for for that office. That would make your candidacy a fraud and your election a fraud. Any other interpretation is unsustainable because it makes a farce of the law of the land and your holding the office a violation of that law.

[BP2]

> If you do not meet the constitutional requirements to HOLD office, you can’t be voted for for that office. That would make your candidacy a fraud and your election a fraud.

Please understand that I fully agree with you on this point. However, there is an argument to be made for “political expression” as well. "Political expression" does NOT extend to HOLDING an office you're not eligible for; just running for office. What is the "balance" of ensuring "political expression" while protecting other parts (such as NBC) of the Constitution? That needs to be decided...

Take a look at these two cases (particularly the first) regarding "political expression."

More importantly, within these two cases lies (particularly the second) the LEGAL justifications (but not moral) for DENYING many of the cases against Obama up to this point (I simply cite these cases, I agree with little therein):

FRED HOLLANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, and REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
4-30-08
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Hollander-M2DisFAC.pdf

“KEITH LANCE ET AL. v. MIKE COFFMAN, COLORADO”
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO, No. 06–641.
Decided March 5, 2007
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf