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.
The court would rule on the constitutionality of the 2-citizen parent requirement. That ruling would be based on the legal precedents and (hopefully) what the terminology meant at the time the Constitution was ratified. That is for the court to decide, and the only way they will decide it is if they have a case that they can’t refuse to hear. That is the reason to have the 2-citizen-parent requirement.
With the severability clause the whole law can’t be unenforceable just because that part is being challenged or found to be illegal.
So I asked you on what constitutional grounds the DOJ or anybody else would say that the rest of the law could not be implemented.
Your response seems to be case law, statutes, and history. That doesn’t answer my question. Where in the Constitution does it forbid the provisions of this law - either the longer form or the shorter form? What is the constitutional basis?