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.
“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.’
The term NBC is a matter of language, not law, as far as it’s definition goes. In the 18th century, when the Founders wrote the Constitution, NBC, a term dating to Roman times, was understood to be those born in a country to parents who were its citizens in western jusrist thought. There is ample evidence that this definition was the Founders intent in writing Article II.
That said, I agree it would be nice if the Congress would codify the term so that there is no doubt as to it’s meaning and intent in the law, so long as that definition reflects the Founders Original Intent.
The Supreme Court, in many of it’s citizenship decisions, have always held that the term meant jus solis and jus sanguine....Birth to the soil to citizen parents.....These individuals are the very foundation of any society and they are recognized as the one true, unchanging, unequivical example of a citizen.
NBC is a quality of birth, not a class of citizenship. It bears the status of being a “native” and considered essential to anyone holding the highest office in the land by those that wrote the Constitution.....it has no other cashet in American Law or society.
The Founder’s concerns about someone other than a Natural Born Citizen being President have been realized in Barack Obama. In this instance, and all others, we would have been wise to follow our own laws.
Contrary to your supposition, One bad president/precident does not negate the wisdom of the Founders in this area, instead it only serves to reinforce it. Nor does it overturn the past 220+ years of American Law and Tradition.
Today or tomorrow, as in the past, ineligible individuals, or their cheering sections, will attempt to circumvent the Constitution with regard to the very simple, and seemingly easily met, requirements of Article II. It is up to We the People to uphold our own laws and it’s wisdom.