Just tried to work thru this....
starting with this
a natural born Citizen ....is a person born in the United States to parents who are both citizens of the United States,
*******
OK clearly Obama has one parent who is US born and one who is not....
**************
So now ...is that the Requirement?
********************
Lets go to this from American Thinker....
Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?
***************************EXCERPT*****************************
If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in Berg v. Obama et al.
Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.
The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren't properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.
When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs. The theory is that another person's loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one's own constitutional rights.
Judge Surrick's carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be President was challenged. In deciding that "a candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters," Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:
If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .
Here's where I believe Judge Surrick's decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.
The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ."
A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts.
**********************************
Do read the whold article....
****************************
So the Supreme Court seems to be the enforcer.....I wonder what they are going to say .... about clearing up the definition of natural born citizen...?
“A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts.”
- ———— ———— -—
No argument there, but the standing requirements still pose a barrier to WHOM may bring such a suit.
Judge Surrick followed the principle of stare decisis, and ruled on the Berg case in accordance with previous case decisions that dismissed similar cases due to a lack of standing.
He could have decided otherwise, and forced the defendants to appeal, but unless the SCOTUS makes law by changing the standing requirement, these cases will meet similar outcomes.
That is why Alan Keyes’ case is different, and why his case has a better chance of being decided on the merits.