Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Court cases rule and set precedent based on interpretation of existing laws…in this case how the 14th amendment applies/changes section 1.5 from Article II about who can hold office as president.
Supreme Court is usually expected to uphold this type of precedent by default, but as the highest court in the land, they can overturn it if/when Cenk’s case makes it to them.
If they do uphold it, a later supreme court could reinterpret the existing law and overturn this ruling as a result. This was the case with Roe. Congress could codify this interpretation into law by amending the constitution with something even more clear than the 14th amendment, like “naturalized citizens can hold office of presidency.”
To me the 14th seems pretty clear in its intent already, and I think the prior ruling clearly should stand…you’d have to have some wildly politically active judges to misinterpret something like that. Oh wait…!😅 so we shall see.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Court cases rule and set precedent based on interpretation of existing laws…in this case how the 14th amendment applies/changes section 1.5 from Article II about who can hold office as president.
Supreme Court is usually expected to uphold this type of precedent by default, but as the highest court in the land, they can overturn it if/when Cenk’s case makes it to them.
If they do uphold it, a later supreme court could reinterpret the existing law and overturn this ruling as a result. This was the case with Roe. Congress could codify this interpretation into law by amending the constitution with something even more clear than the 14th amendment, like “naturalized citizens can hold office of presidency.”
To me the 14th seems pretty clear in its intent already, and I think the prior ruling clearly should stand…you’d have to have some wildly politically active judges to misinterpret something like that. Oh wait…!😅 so we shall see.