The usual place for these questions is the courts. The courts, however, seem to be increasingly reluctant to take on these tough "political" issues particularly after the fallout from Paula Jones lawsuit (leading to impeachment) and Bush vs Gore. It's why they are hired and yet they are cowed. As Justice Scalia said, "It takes four."
At this point my belief is SCOTUS would go so far as to say a dual citizen could occupy the office so long as he or she didn't do the things the State Dept says constitutes renouncing U.S. citizenship. I think being an officer in a foreign military is one.
I don't agree it's a good standard for our country's highest office but I suspect it's the one they'd set: excluding only those never citizens, naturalized citizens and those who fit criteria of having formally renounced their U.S. citizenship as willy-nilly determined by State Dept policy. The end result: Obama is, was and will be president.
They will not want to be responsible for determining the first elected black president's eligibility for office. Even if they ultimately decided jus soli is sufficient or any birthright U.S. citizenship fit the "Natural Born Citizen" criteria, there is fear.
Keyes makes a good point that elections don't determine constitutionality. Certainly we know the Left believes that from their endless suits against voter approved constitutional amendments like CA's Prop 22 defining marriage. In this case the Left may argue instead no one has standing (a tactic being used against Prop 22), it's a question for impeachment not the courts, it was settled by Congress' certification, etc.
The cowardice in our institutions is appalling! It's impossible to imagine the same institution dared to buck segregation, for example. Or that we were able to win WWII. Or many examples of past greatness. For those in their 40s or younger such courage must seem like legend, not history.
An astute observation, indeed. I'll admit it's one of the top three or so main reasons I support the birther movement myself, as it won't take too much of a fishing expedition to turn up some real important goods on this jack wagon. First and foremost of course, is limiting those with questions as great as Obama's to a maximum of his one first term.
At this point my belief is SCOTUS would go so far as to say a dual citizen could occupy the office so long as he or she didn't do the things the State Dept says constitutes renouncing U.S. citizenship. I think being an officer in a foreign military is one.
Unfortunately true. America these days is so politically correct, and afraid afraid afraid of ever speaking the truth we're on the verge of being doomed to a heartless, brainless future controlled by real life Wizards of Oz.
They will not want to be responsible for determining the first elected black president's eligibility for office...The cowardice in our institutions is appalling!
Ultimately our hope appears to be reduced to seeing if the states can retain control of the eligibility requirements for their own state ballots. Unfortunately, a slippery slope within itself.
It's impossible to imagine the same institution dared to buck segregation, for example. Or that we were able to win WWII. Or many examples of past greatness. For those in their 40s or younger such courage must seem like legend, not history.
I'm just glad my father isn't around to see this, he and his kind certainly deserved better than what the modern day politicians have done to this country in such a short time. And unless we go back to the original limitations on who can vote that our forefathers put in the original Constitution, starting with the requirement that only property owners can vote, which is of course unlikely, there's unfortunately no end to the madness in sight.