[Perdogg]

I agree with the first two points, the third point is somewhat complicated. However, the court may hear this fall a case which may define NBC.

The third point complication involves the US Constitution, re-affrimed by Bush v Gore. The Constitution states that people do not elect a President, rather States do. Therefore, does a person have standing to challege the outcome of a Presidental election?

Then is further complicated by Jones v Bush, where a federal district judge threw out a case because Jones was not a candidate and did not have standing.

[Brookhaven]

Even if (and I think it’s a big if) a court should decide this case, the argument will be made that it is the role of the congress to define NBC and not the courts.

There are only two probably outcomes of a court challenge:

1) an activist court will expand the definition of NBC to mean anyone born a citizen.

2) a court will dismiss the case on the basis that it is the responsibility of congress to define NBC, and absent such a definition the court can’t make a decision.

No court is going to declare a born-citizen not to be a NBC in the absence of a clarifying definition by congress. It just ins’t going to happen—ever.