bob wrote:enior Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Dan Pellegrini, gets it right in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016, that it is not an impermissible political question for a court to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is. I have so maintained for almost 8 years. Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.
How, exactly is Appuzo vindicated? Was it not he, the great legal scholar Apuzzo who, when someone would cite to Ankeny, and other "lower court" opinions said that they didn't count? That all that counts is SCOTUS? Huh? Huh?
So now I suppose that's not longer his position.
Well, it doesn't really count. Some state court judge doesn't get to decide eligibility for anyone, including Cruz, but just sayin'.