[TNTNT]

I did not mean to leave our conversation so abruptly last night, but my wife unplugged the computer at 11:45 p.m. and told me I was going to spend the last 15 minutes of 2010 and the first hour of 2011 with her. I gladly complied. LOL The reason your proposed law will attacked as unconstitutional is that it places an extra-constitutional requirement and limitation on the ability to urn for President. It will be a legal argument similiar to the argument made regarding term limits passed by various states for federal offices (US Senator & Representative) when SCOTUS declared them to be unconstitutional in the 90’s. I am not saying it is slam dunk for that ruling, but the prevailing legal sentiment certainly supports the view that requiring 2 citizens-parent, if the person is born in the USA, to be a unconstitutional infringement. As I said in a previous post, Your proposed law will certainly get that issue into the courts, I just don't think Scotus will weigh in the the issue if the lower courts find the law to be unconstitutional. But it is probably your best bet for some type of judicial resolution.

[butterdezillion]

When the wife calls, a wise man will always listen. lol.

The bill itself wouldn’t require that the person have 2 citizen parents. The bill would only require that if someone was born to a parent who was not a US citizen, the courts have to determine eligibility and the name cannot be placed on the ballot until the court determines that they are eligible.

And the cost of the court case would not fall on the prospective candidate; it would fall on the state. But the end result would be a court ruling establishing a working definition of “natural born US citizen” - the decision being made by the people the Constitution authorizes to interpret the Constitution.

Once that definition was in place the state could expect that ineligible candidates would not even try to be placed on the ballot, which would make the court costs a rare thing for the state. Hopefully it would be a one-time investment on behalf of the entire nation.

The only requirement the state would be making is for the candidate to authorize access to documentation pertinent to Constitutional eligibility. Would that be considered extra-Constitutional? It seems to me that if the law can currently require documentation for every federal employee before they can receive a federal paycheck, the issue of requiring documentation is already established as Constitutional. Would you agree?