USC Title 8, Sec 1401 can be found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html .
Nowhere does it use the term “natural born citizen”. You have misrepresented what it said. It talks about who is considered a citizen at birth.
You talk about what I’ve written being so blatantly unconstitutional, but when I’ve asked you on what grounds it is unconstitutional you don’t respond with any specifics. I asked what constitutional rights would be violated if an AG simply relayed the written arguments from both sides to the court. You’ve never answered that. Where in the constitution does it say that an AG can’t be the person to transport the papers to the court?
And regarding the short version I don’t even have anything with the AG. It has the 2-citizen parent requirement so that the courts will have to rule on the constitutionality of that, and in the meantime the other parts of the law would remain in effect whether or not the 2-citizen-parent part was found unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional in all of that? The parts that concern 2-citizen-parents would have to wait the 2 years or however long for the Dept of Injustice to do its dilly-dallying, but unless the rest of it is argued as unconstitutional what would the DOJ use to say that it could not go into effect?
It would be a little bit like saying that none of the Constitution can be in effect until we figure out whether gay marriage is constitutional. Can the DOJ put a restraining order on the whole Constitution because there are questions pending about part of that legal document?
I think your goal is to get me to give up. It won’t work.
You are the only person who has seen any constitutional issue with this. I ran it past tired old conservative, and it seemed to me that he thought it not the best thing that could be passed but didn’t mention constitutional concerns. Neither did a real-life lawyer who looked at it for me.
TOC, I know it’s been slow posting around here and so you might not have said everything you otherwise would have. Were there constitutional concerns you have with anything I’ve presented? Is there anything specific that is so blatantly unconstitutional that the RNC, DNC, and DOJ would all jump against it on Constitutional grounds and the DOJ would HAVE to order it to not be implemented until they can put it through 2 years’ worth of dilly-dallying?
I don’t doubt that Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice will do exactly that, but I’m wondering if there is anything in the concepts or language which would prompt that, or whether it would just be the same political agenda which compels him to not enforce the law when minorities are the perpetrators.
If Eric Holder gets in hot water himself because of the way he’s politicized the DOJ he might not be around to try to stop state eligibility laws from going into effect.
As I have previously posted, I believe the 2 citizen-parent requirement, if the person is born in the USA, is an extra-constitutional additional requirement to be POTUS that is not in the Constitution. I am also sure that whoever sues regarding this provision will be able to obtain injunctive relief while the case is pending in the courts.
I know you do not agree with my viewpoint of either of the above, but it based upon the the relevant case law, statutes and history, I am fairly confident of the outcome of your project.
TOC- if you are lurking and have anything to add or correct to what I have said, feel free to add your 2 cents.