[tsowellfan]

There is NO eligibility issue here and NOT because of the reasons you think. President Obama has set a new precedence. Until Obama is forced to step down before Jan 20th because of his eligibility issue, it's not an issue from here forward.

Besides, Ted Cruz, I'm sorry to say is toast. He's all but endorsed Marco Rio today.

Many of the Trump/Cruz supporters are anti-establishment voters. Cruz should have been going after establishment candidates such as Marco Rubio instead of attacking a candidate whose voters would have easily moved over to his side.

Now Cruz is galvanizing those anti-establishment Trump supporters against ever crossing over ESPECIALLY after his comment today Marco Rubio would make a better President than anti-establishment Donald Trump.

[Lurkinanloomin]

it’s not an issue from here forward.
**************************************

So anybody can be President?

Let’s get Netanyahu

[AmericanVictory]

Let me point out again that the Obama situation created no legal precedent. All of the suits about his eligibility were brought after he was elected and all were dismissed for lack of standing and the merits were never reached. Some of these findings, I have no doubt, were politically motivated for reasons that are shameful, namely, a belief that the first (half) black President simply could not be challenged and some excuse for not finding Article III standing had, therefore, to be stretched for and found.

Dismissal for lack of standing does not create any legal precedent. By contrast, in the present situation, suits have already been brought under state ballot access laws where standing was found to exist because they were brought at that early stage. Further, there is nothing to prevent the Democrat nominee, who would have standing at the general election stage, to bring suit. Trump would have standing at this time to sue but why would he, if he is winning? It would make no political sense.