The real problem is that those claiming that he is qualified to be president cite congressional law — the problem with that is that congress’s powers extend to naturalization, not to [re]defining terms in the Constitution (absent amendment), so by citing congressional law they undermine their claim that he is a natural born citizen.
IOW — If congress can declare who is/isn’t NBC then they can essentially modify the Constitution’s presidential requirements.
Trouble is that the Constitution doesn’t actually define what the term “natural born citizen” means. In cases like this, laws passed by Congress and/or court decisions usually form the basis upon which such definitions are made. If Congress’ definition is faulty, then someone would sue, take the case to the SCOTUS and it would then be incumbent upon the SCOTUS to settle the definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. It seems pretty clear, though, that the term has historically meant a person who is a citizen of the US from birth, and has not had to become one through a naturalization process.
The enumerated power of Congress with regards to naturalization is to define who needs or does not need naturalization. These rules were laid down by the very first congress and have been occasionally modified since then. Congress is not redefining any terms.
Too damn bad the SCOTUS decided to take a pass on this question. Duck it. Avoid it. Look the other way. Shirk their duty. Punt.
As a result, we no longer really have a firm idea what a citizen if the US actually is. I sort of think I am, but then so is little José born last night in LA to two illegal alien parents. Now, I think I am doubtless a "Natural Born Citizen," but then, so they tell me, are little José, young Wong, born on a shopping trip to San Francisco taken before his birth by his Chinese mom. Yes, citizenship is somewhat more plausible for Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, not to mention Bobby Jindal. But what kind?
Under our COTUS, "consensus" is not law. Is it too much to ask that the SCOTUS consider defining Constitutional terms when properly framed appeals reach them?
To pass law about who must be naturalized, you must also decide who must not be. That is why the Constitution gives congress the authority to make any law necessary to implement the powers they have been granted under the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.***
I cite the US Constitution, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and a real lawyer professor, William A Jacobson
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
However the Supreme Court ruled in 1874 in Minor v Happersett that “the Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”
“Elsewhere” has turned out to be statutory laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents.
I tend to believe that many people in the US ,be they Obamites or Cruzites or going back to McKinley etc. are for free wheeling politics especially if and when such politics suits ‘my’ desires. I recall being at a hearing in the state when a bureaucrat expressed a view that all things are relative and it is the immediate needs and opinions of those in office that are paramount. It took Ronald Reagan to put that person under the buss.