So Obama’s eligibility was questioned in Tennessee courts, and the case was thrown out on “standing” grounds, but the logic behind the Tennessee Democratic Party’s argument is quite interesting. To quote:
Even if the Court determined that Plaintiffs had standing, Defendants maintain that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). First, Defendants argue that a federal lawsuit is not the proper vehicle to challenge a candidate’s qualifications for office. Rather this task is reserved for the electorate and the United States Congress. In other words, Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted under federal law. Second, Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office. To the extent that Plaintiffs seeks to influence how the Tennessee Democratic Party chooses its candidates, Plaintiffs must work through the party system.
(My emphasis.) Constitution? We don’t need no Constitution. We don’t have to follow no steekin’ Constitution!
Nice of ’em to admit it in a legal document.