Replies

Oh, those things. Orly Tizzy-Tatz stuff. That stuff wasn’t my bag. Neither was obama being born in Kenya, or having a dozen different daddy candidates.

Funny thing about the judiciary you mentioned. In those Joint Resolutions the elected officials tried to get passed to do away with clause 5 in Art. 2, some mention is made about needing the AMENDMENT to Art. 2 because if the Constitution isn’t amended and the SCOTUS rules on the eligibility thing in the future for say, one individual at a time, the rulings will be open to court challenges.

I’m guessing they knew what they were talking about. So, SCOTUS could be appealed to to “handle it”, but IF they did so any ruling could/would instantly be challenged in court. I think it was the erstwhile Barney Frank who made that statement. Waaaaaayyyy before any hint of obama “birtherism” came along. And it takes forever to get anything through the courts. So, presumably they were were trying to pave the way for Arnold S. and didn’t want the risk of challenges if SCOTUS didn’t rule their way. It didn’t work out for them, but they kept trying.

Well, I find that empathy sometimes helps. If you were on the Supreme Court and someone asked you the overrule the decision of a majority of electors based upon a clause in the Constitution that is so intrinsically uncertain and indefinite that it lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation, how would you feel about intervening in the electoral process? Would it matter that the Constitution clearly provides that presidents are to be selected by electors and that there is no textual support for judicial review of the electors' decisions? Would it matter to you that any Supreme Court decision is likely to be based upon an opinion that is not unanimous (like, say, 5-4)?

I trust the Founders and the Founders trusted the electors to select our presidents. The electors are every bit as capable as Supreme Court justices in interpreting and applying the Constitution's eligibility provisions. The standards aren't particularly complicated. Reasonable variations in interpretation are minor variations. Every interpretation that I have heard respects the need for a president to have a close political connection to the United States by heritage and by experience (the residency clause). There just isn't anything to get that excited about.

Ted Cruz - 2016