Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose.
It is not up to us to judge whether a constitutional requirement is effective or not. It is our duty to adhere to it until it is nullified. We don't get to decide to enforce the parts we like, and ignore the parts we don't. We are obligated to enforce it all, even if it is ineffective.
I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
If you believe in observing ineffective constitutional provisions, then why waste time by bringing up it's ineffectiveness? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements.
This is nonsense. It is axiomatic. If the Constitution stipulates a requirement, it doesn't need to explicitly state that it will be enforced. Non irrational people recognize this as an inherent aspect of any constitutional law.
And who's duty is it to enforce it? Every American citizen, and especially office holders.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president.
This would not even be a proposal had the court moved quickly to address the issue prior to the election, or even prior to the assumption of office. That they did not, is also the fault of the courts.
The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.
Part of the problem is that very few people nowadays has a good understanding of what was intended when they wrote "Natural born citizen" in Article II. The 14th amendment has so badly polluted the principles involved that people nowadays can't tell the difference between a naturalized at birth citizen and a natural born citizen.
It is not the fault of the judiciary that the appropriate plaintiffs who could have filed suit chose not to bother with pursuing legal action. That blame should go on the major political parties and the so-called “third parties.”
I can guarantee you that there is no judge in America who is going to rule favorably on a candidate eligibility challenge without the opposition candidate(s) as parties to the complaint.
The proof of what I am saying is that more than 500 judges (when counting multi-judge appeals court/state and federal supreme court panels) have had a chance to rule on Barack Obama’s eligibility and not one of them has ruled him to be ineligible.
Before the 2008 election, before the vote of the electors, before the certification of the Electoral College vote by both Houses of Congress and before Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed an ineligibility appeal and permitted it to stand. Justices Souter, Kennedy and Scalia could have issued injunctions, but they did not.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-570.htm
“The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.”
Both of those Secretaries of State requested confirmation of Obama’s birth vital records from Hawaii and received Certified Letters of Verification.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
Under Article Four, Section One of the Constitution, there was little else they could do.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, RECORDS, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”—Article IV, Section 1.
What the Secretaries of State needed was a criminal court ruling that Obama’s birth record is fraudulent, forged, altered, filed late or amended.
There has never been such a criminal (or even civil) court ruling. There has been no criminal court proceeding at all.