[WildHighlander57]

I meant why didn’t they (other candidates) challenge this part, an ineligible person running?

From your post:
“.... A person who is ineligible to serve cannot run for office. Running is the act, and the other candidates have standing because they are harmed by an ineligible candidate that is running nonetheless. ....”

Any of the candidates (p&f, green, aip, constitution, etc) could have challenged, not just the top two parties (r&d).

[Political Junkie Too]

You are mixing to issues together: candidates challenging an ineligible candidate, and the basis of the eligibility.

As to the basis, nobody was going near the 20th amendment qualifications birth certificate NBC claim; that was toxic. The 22nd amendment term limits claim is much more solid in 2016, and it didn't exist before.

As for other candidates challenging, sure. Why not have all of them challenge? I'm responding to the standing claim by saying that top national figures would not put up with a challenge to their standing the way a minor candidate might. The top candidates have the authority of their current offices to push back against credibility smears.

-PJ