You think he can force them to make an unconstitutional law?
(Edited for irrelevance.)
Of course not. I pointed out it will get shot down in every lower court that sees the case. And I would be shocked if the Supremes granted cert after that happened.
But if you want (ETA: which is to say, if Cenk Uygur wants) to get the question before the court, a lawsuit about the denial is the way to do it.
I removed the call to action. Don’t repost it or similiar stuff.
Thank you.
If all the lower courts rule that it is unconstitutional, why would the Supreme Court not dismiss it out of hand?
That’s what “denying cert” (the opposite of granting cert) is.
Why do we have a Supreme Court? Why bother with lawsuits at all if they’re so controversial?
Point is, this should not be controversial! It should be an easy case of applying settled Constitutional law to a whole class of excluded people. Oh, the Supremes would never do that. Maybe, maybe not. Love to get them on the record anyway. Or get their refusal to rule on the record.
The Constitution, and SCOTUS, just do not work that way.
This has absolutely nothing to do with controversy.
Yet Cenk, who’s by no means a fool, is pursuing this. Seems he thinks he can get something out of it. Might simply be that by making a stink, he can get attention, maybe he wants to see if he can goad the right into doing something stupid like defending the indefensible (they’re good at that). Nothing makes a bully look worse than attacking those at a disadvantage. I don’t know if it can succeed, but hard to see how it can backfire if played correctly (you let your opponent make your point for you, then bow out gracefully).
Maybe you should think twice about supporting a candidate if that candidate is not constitutionally qualified and you don’t have a clue as to what his motives might be?
As Mammy Yokum would say, “Ah has spoken!” (I’ll see your Pat Paulsen and raise you a Li’l Abner.)
You’re right. It’s not controversial at all to state the fact that the Constitution says he’s not eligible to be president.
With is misogynistic attitude, his lack of respect for the Constitution and his need for publicity, he might qualify for Speaker of the House.
My WAG would be that he hopes to get publicity, and money. Actually fomenting any serious discussion about changing the Constitution would be gravy.
How about, this SCotUS seeing it as the opportunity to define “natural born citizen” so as to (retroactively) exclude Barack Obama from holding the office of President?
It’s not like the term actually has a definitive meaning as anyone that remembers ‘Birthergate’ is all too aware of.
Besides instituting Sharia law on Day One you mean? I know exactly what his motives are. He spelled it out for us. Defeating a fascist takeover would seem to be one priority. How much is that worth to you? I don’t support a lot of what he has said and done (for starters, his taste in pop culture is atrocious) but he gets to play it as he sees fit. He’s not afraid of a fight (he’s at his most irritating when he goes on and on about what a bunch of cowards the Dems are) and I do agree that serious pushback is called for. So, I’ll put a bumper sticker on my car (it’s a doozy) and that’s probably as far as it goes. Fear not! When he ends his campaign, he won’t be refashioning himself as a third-party spoiler. And yes, I hope he gets somewhere with his challenge to one little embarrassing tidbit in the founding document, but that’s really just a sideshow. Could provide a small opening for him to get people to hear him out. Now how much would you pay?
We’ve already got a president who’s batting 1000 when it comes to defeating fascist takeovers.
People being excluded isn’t the point. “Unconstitutional” is not a synonym for bad or unfair or even illegal. It means it goes against what is written in the constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to change the constitution. Just to pull some outrageous examples out of thin air, if the constitution said it was ok to exclude black people or women from voting then it would be constitutional to keep black people or women from voting. Even though it would seem unfair the Supreme Court could not rule against it. The only recourse would be to make an amendment changing the constitution. I’m sorry I couldn’t come up with a more realistic example.
No, I do NOT mean.
But you said this not too long ago:
Sounds to me that you are not sure of his motives.