The AZ gatekeeper SoS is immune from court review, on the certification that the name of the person running for president is qualified. All other candidates, in AZ, may have their qualifications challenged in court, by operation of AZ statute that gives a right to challenge.
-- we should anticipate a candidate registering on the basis of a home birth will have those "alternative" documents well-prepared. Now what? IMO, the court will say "put them on the ballot." --
There is always a possibility of a "marginal" candidate, one with unclear heritage or murky documentation of heritage. I don't think that unreviewable decisions are the most reliable way to get to "metaphysical truth" in any case. Regardless of that opinion of mine, no matter what system is in place, it can swing either way, for or against those interested in the truth. Sometimes the initial take is correct, sometimes the reviewer is in the bag (See Florida Supreme Court, US Supreme Court on some issues, etc.), and sometimes the reverse.
The "cure" to blatantly incorrect conclusions of law in all of those instances is sufficient awareness on the part of the public; perhaps combined with a willingness to throw out the people who are making the blatant errors.
-- The ultimate fix for this eligibility bill includes "two citizen parent" language with the understanding it will be challenged at the highest level ... --
That's one way to get there. Another is to leave the details out of the legislation, and leave it to the challenger to voice the specific grounds for the challenge. Some challenger is sure to assert the traditional grounds for finding natural born citizenship.
As mentioned above, the ultimate success depends entirely on public awareness, acceptance, and demand for adherence to the underlying principle. My impression is that the public is unaware of (or generally accepts) the risks that dual citizenship and naturalized citizenship pose, to admission to the office of president. If the public is indifferent about the constitution (and I think, on the whole, it is), then the elites will have their way with the public.
That is almost certainly true, but doesn’t seem on point. No one here is, or should be, arguing that on the basis of the language in this bill, the SoS is responsible for determining NBC, or should bear liability for any misjudgment in that regard. (Quite the opposite, of course, if the bill specifies two citizen parentage.)
The issue is whether it is favorable to patriots that a single official be the gatekeeper for determining conformance with the statute and the names on the ballot. Section -351 you cited earlier provides for exactly such a court review after ballots are printed.
Fortunately for AZ, Rep Seel happens to agree with the single gatekeeper concept.
It is difficult to argue with the remainder of your comments; they describe the stuff you and I wish America was made of.
However, given clear evidence the voters are being dumbed down, that 47% of them are not taxpayers, most of them have no idea who is serving in their local government and that “they” have sent close to 100 out-of-the-closet socialists to Congress – it seems clear we need stronger laws that reflect the Constitution.
IMO, that includes adding NBC to state eligibility requirements, rather than hoping the USSC will hear a claim by a defeated candidate.