Chief Justice Roberts obviously disagrees with you since he swore Obama into office. Don't expect SCOTUS, Congress or any state to take any action against Obama or Rubio to prevent him from running or holding office.
Chief Justice Roberts obviously disagrees with you since he swore Obama into office. Don't expect SCOTUS, Congress or any state to take any action against Obama or Rubio to prevent him from running or holding office. You are certainly good at the non-sequitur. Your argument is that because A = B, then B must = C.
The notion that Chief Justice Roberts might have based his actions on false assumptions never occurs to such as you. Apart from that, he flubbed the oath of office, so perhaps he did have some misgivings.