Section 301 One can assert all kinds of potential liabilities with any candidate, but to assert something that has never been done to any presidential candidate under the NBC argument is ludicrous to me.
I really don't know what legal doctrine they would use. The only arguable thing about it might entail trying to say that the citizenship can only transfer from the Father, which is based on old English thinking and no longer applies as women now carry equal legal standing. The birth mother now counts and this is enshrined in legal precedent. If it did not, Ted Cruz would have been put through a Naturalization procedure.
There is really no valid, real time argument to be made here. We can delve and many have, into the minutia of how all this developed, but to prosecute a successful challenge on this basis today would not only be expensive, it would most assuredly fail.
You haven’t heard a word that anybody has said. There are differing opinions on this and it has never been decided specifically by the courts. That leaves it open to whatever a judge wants (or is told) to do. We already saw the GA judge (Maliki?) decide Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot by “judge’s knowledge” - and yes, I think he does have Iranian heritage so maybe he comes by sharia rulings honestly. Not supposed to happen in the US... We’ve seen court clerks do every shenanigan in the book to sabotage cases on Obama’s eligibility. You missed all that? Wow.
Well, there’s not much use talking to you then. What Chief Justice Roberts did in the Obamacare decision had never been done to a case regarding requiring people to buy healthcare (or anything else) therefore it could never happen, by your logic (or lack thereof).
This discussion is pointless.
Section 301