On Nov 8, 10:44 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The issue of "standing" in this case has to do with a gap in the law, > that is, there is no specific mechanism to apply the constitutional > requirement regarding a president's presence or lack of citizenship - > as pointed out by the District Court in Pennsylvania. In effect, the > court said "Take it up with the legislature." SCOTUS previously > refused Ohio on essentially the same grounds.
On something so specifically spelled out in the Constitution, why would Laws need to be written? Do the specifics in the Constitution not have the force of Law behind them? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
