[Tau Food]

Whether a person meets Constitutional requirements is a question of law, not politics. The Judiciary handles questions of law, they find facts and apply law.

Courts do not provide answers to all questions or issues.

Just as it is not the job of the judiciary to appoint ambassadors, to grant pardons, to impeach presidents, to declare war or to impose taxes, it is not the job of the judiciary to choose Presidents. I believe that the Constitution very clearly delegates to Electors the responsibility for choosing our presidents.

I believe that is why you have never seen a court attempt to disqualify any candidate for President. And, if you are a voter, you participate in the election of Electors. You must take that responsibility seriously and you should not vote for an Elector who is pledged to support an unqualified candidate.

If Ted Cruz was not qualified to be President, I would not vote for Electors who pledge themselves to support his candidacy. However, Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen and he is, therefore, qualified to be President. If he is on my ballot, I will vote for him.

[Ray76]

> I believe that the Constitution very clearly delegates to Electors the responsibility for choosing our presidents.

The electoral process is a political process defined by law.

Eligibility is not a political question, it is a set of legal requirements defined by the Constitution. To claim that eligibility is a political question is absurd, it renders the Constitutional requirements a nullity.

Eligibility is determined by three factors, each and all justiciable:

1. the person shall "have attained to the Age of thirty five Years"
2. the person shall have "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"
3. the person shall be a "natural born citizen"

When a case is brought challenging a person's eligibility the Judiciary will find fact and apply law, determining whether that person is eligible or not.