The Constitution gives little or no power to the Courts to decide eligibility issues for POTUS.
Those powers are given to the States, to the Electors, and to Congress.
Congress has a CO-EQUAL power to interpret the Constitution.
Only liberals and uninformed “conservatives” think otherwise.
Congress says that the Radical Birthers are wrong.
The decision of Congress holds as much weight as any Supreme Court Ruling on this matter, and that is a big reason why the Courts do not want to rule: The Courts KNOW they were not given much power over these issues!
You are a LIBERAL if you disagree with that statement.
Calling people names when you disagree with them is not a valid form of debate and should avoided. If someone disagrees with the opinions you express, your posts do not refute their argument by presenting evidence to the contrary, your posts just use ad hominem attacks to attack the character of the person who posted a comment. Calling your opponents names does not refute their logic, nor does it establish your position as convincing. You call your opponents "uninformed" or "liberals" or "radical birthers", or "judicial supremacists" with no backup to those statements. Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "liberal" or a "radical". That sounds like something a commie might say. Conservatives are above that so let's try to raise the conversation level here, ok?
Congress has a CO-EQUAL power to interpret the Constitution.
Who says the three branches are Co-equal? I know modern progressives say that, but where can it be implied that they actually are equal in interpreting the Constitution? The founders did not see them as equal. In Federalist paper 51 James Madison, the Father of the Constitutions said: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
If a branch of government is predominant, it is by definition false that the other branches are Co-equal. The branches are only equal in the sense that they are sovereign when acting in the sphere constitutionally delegated to them. They are not equally powerful branches nor do they entirely share the same powers.
Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton went on to reaffirm that the branches are not co-equal. In Federalist Paper 78 Hamilton declares says:
“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the Legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments.
From Hamilton's above declaration, it is obvious that the founders did not consider the three branches to be co-equal. (Otherwise, one branch would not be weaker than the others.) It is also clear that Hamilton intended the power of the judiciary (i.e. that is interpreting the law and the constitution) to be separate from the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
Furthermore, the Constitutional view concerning the judiciary in the above mentioned Federalist papers is a well established principle in Constitutional Law. This principle has not been opposed by Congress, nor has Congress as a body acted to deny SCOTUS this constitutionally delegated power to interpret the constitution. It is true that Congress has some degree of ability to interpret the Constitution, but since Congress does not have the judicial power, it must follow that Congress does not have the final say in judicial matters of interpreting the laws. However, the judicial power is specifically given to SCOTUS rather than SCOTUS, and so it must then be that the Constitution did not intend Congress to be able to exercise the judicial power. Marubury v. Madison (1803) establishes that Congress cannot create laws that contradict the Constitution and Article III of the US Constitution and United States v. Nixon (1973) establishes that the Supreme Court have the FINAL say on what the Constitution says, not Congress. US v. Nixon spells this out clearly when it declares:
"Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."
Notwithstanding the deference each branch must accord the others, the "judicial Power of the United States" vested in the federal courts by Art. III, § 1, of the Constitution can no more be shared with the Executive Branch than the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government. The Federalist, No. 47, p. 313 (S. Mittell ed. Page 418 U. S. 705 1938). We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court "to say what the law is" with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case.
The definition of Natural born citizenship clause is a provision of the US Constitution, therefore, in pursuance with Article III and the above mentioned Constitutional Law cases, the Supreme Court alone has the final say on what that term means.
BTW, Congress has not acted to clearly define the term natural born citizen as you imply. The Senate did declare via a non-binding resolution that they believed McCain was a NBC, but a non-binding resolution passed by only the Senate hardly counts as an act of Congress with authority to define a constitutional term.
The point is that the founders vested ALL JUDICIAL Power in the SCOTUS. Neither you, nor the Congress, nor the president have the Constitutional authority to say any differently. The Constitution gives no power to the courts to elect the president, but it certainly gives the SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutional eligibility of the President under the provisions of Article II. Sure, if SCOTUS makes a bad decision, the Congress should use its checks and balances to protect the constitution by repelling the injustices of the judicial branch. The problem is that lately Congress doesn't stand up for itself, and thus allows itself to get steamrolled by the president and SCOTUS.