- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
But, wouldn't the method of enforcing it be the prerogative of the other branches? Why would the Judiciary be allowed to decide the mechanism for enforcement?
What if Congress passes a law that says that the testimony of the mother and father is enough (no written documents)? What if they pass a law that says a newspaper birth announcement is enough? What about, instead, a birth certificate? How about a passport? What about nothing?
It seems to me that the prerogative would lie entirely with the other branches. Why would the judiciary get to decide what was enough? I would think that they could only decide that it was required, and it would stop there. If the legislative made a law requiring something, the judiciary would get to decide if those requirements were met, nothing more.
At least with more 'conservative' jurisprudence, if you will.
Like I said, it's one of those things that nobody really anticipated having to deal with, so it would likely be sort of made up on the fly, fitting it as best as can into the already existing system.
Wrong.
It's the DNC who backed Obama. It's the DNC who's responsible to confirm that he is eligible.
lol. Saying something doesn't make it true.
There isn't much anyone else can do because there is a Constitutional mandate without any legal way of enforcing it.
You seemed to want to celebrate the fact that no citizen-voter has standing to challenge a Presidential candidate's qualification to be President.
Oh no, some conspiracy theorist douchebags had their suits thrown out.
:hm
Do you share equal zeal for the fact that a portion of the US Constitution has now proved to be totally irrelevant?
How do you figure it's irrelevant? Arnold didn't run. And considering that Obama is qualified, I don't see what the problem is.