So as not to get too bogged down into this discussion, I'll just say that my view of the Constitution (and I am a lawyer who has litigated in the Supreme Court of my own state, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court), is that the determination of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" was left to Congress, within I suppose some extreme parameters. I also believe that this is the view that would prevail at the Supreme Court, unanimously. Punting a controversial political issue to the lawmaking process is always appealing.
The problem lies with those that may follow him in the future. I care about America’s future way beyond 2016.
So do I. But look -- the truth is that a disloyal, anti-American scumbag could just as easily be a natural born citizen -- we all could name a few, I suspect. So ultimately, the best check on us electing someone like that is simply the voters themselves. And if we lack that ability, then the NBC clause isn't going to save us anyway
>> I’ll just say that my view of the Constitution.... is that the determination of what constitutes a “natural born citizen” was left to Congress, within I suppose some extreme parameters.<<<
Congress: There have been at least nine(9) attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution during my lifetime. All have failed. This is indicative that Congress has always recognized that the Constitution requires an amendment in order to change the requirements for POTUS.
Most of those bills have sought to drop the natural born citizen requirement for foreign born citizens and add the requirement of “twenty (20) years or fifteen (15) years a US citizen.” Again, all of these attempts to amend the Constitution and drop the NBC clause have failed to gain traction.
And now we have numerous state eligibility bills intended to keep foreign born citizens off the state ballots for the General Election that have been introduced between 2009 and 2011. Plenty of Americans do not want to change the NBC requirements for any candidate or political party.
The complete lack of vetting of a presidential candidate and the subsequent dismissal of eligibility issues in 2008 has resulted in states scrambling to prevent a redo of 2008 and 2012. The only thing that has changed in 2016 is the enablers; now its the GOP as opposed to the DNC.