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?
As I have indicated in previous postings, trying to modify, restructure, replace, or anything of the like in laws and especially those directly involving the Constitution is asking for much hashing of many ideas, words, and expressions. There has been no success with a frontal attack on the matter of Obama’s eligibility because of congressional and judicial bodies not being pro active as to the oath to defend the Constitution. I do think that bit- by-bit the attack will succeed. Before that time I believe a worthwhile course, simpler, direct and in less time,is to by law open very widely the exposure of all candidates to a rigorous public scrutiny of qualifications along with recognition in law that everybody, including individuals, has standing to challenge the eligibility. There will be less turmoil making such a specific law apart from the existing Constitution. Some will plead a tremendous burden on the courts. Let the courts be busy with this important part of our Government. Instead of the courts dismissing actions because of no standing of ‘We the People’ on the part of petitioners the courts can show their character and judgements by ruling ‘frivolous’.
Since the Constitution does not define NBC, the courts must look to other sources in making it's definition of NBC.
If you can get your proposal passed, you will have a court issuing a ruling on the issue, although I am not sure SCOTUS will necessarily rule on it.
You should know that while the severability clause may save constitutional provisions of the bill if other parts are found to be unconstitutional in the final ruling, it does not have an effect on the original injuntive relief. Although an argument can be made for a more narrow TRO, I believe the court will enjoin the entire law until it is decided and all appeals are exhausted. I further believe there will be challenges to the law, constitutional and otherwise, that we have not discussed.
At this time I hope you have thought about lining up sponsors for the bill and expert witnesses to testify in committee for the necessity of your language. I am sure you realize that you are going to have to educate most, if not all, legislators because they think the entire issue revolves around the BC, and have not even heard of this 2 citizen-parent theory. I think I saw a post by Kenny Bunk on another thread that he had talked to several legislators and everyone said the issue was settled because Obama was born in Hawaii. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it is an issue you need to address if you expect to get anywhere with your proposal.
All this being said, I sincerely wish you luck in getting a ruling on the 2 citizen-parent theory.